Tom French
Moore · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“I rise to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026. At its centre, this bill is about whether a kid growing up outside capital cities can look at university, TAFE or any form of tertiary education and see a real path rather than a distant idea.”
“That is not always an exciting word, but it is a necessary one. For too long, parts of the higher education policy have been pulled towards short term politics, institutional competition and funding settings that do not always meet national needs.”
“It can go to academic support. It can go to scholarships and grants. It can help meet the higher cost of operating campuses outside the major cities. In this bill, the base equity amount is $1,535 and the base regional amount is $1,398.”
“That is why I'm less interested in reciting every number in the legislation and more interested in what those numbers mean when they land in a family living room in a regional town. They mean a student in Merriwa does not have to see university as something for other people.”
“I know the value of a trade, and I know that university is not the only path to a good life, and it should never be treated as the only respectable path. A good tertiary system is not university versus TAFE. It is not degree versus trade.”
“In plain English, that means we're moving to a system where growth in university places is planned and funded more sensibly. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission will have a formal role in allocating Commonwealth supported places.”
The complete record
Every one of 690 lines we hold for Tom French, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the Albanese Labor government improving outcomes for working Australians, and why is this effort so important? What are the risks?”
“Paid parental leave expands to six weeks, because raising children is real work and toddlers behave like they're in tiny workplace relations disputes with no cooling-off period. Small businesses will benefit from the permanent $20,000 instant asset write-off, and we are cutting more annoying tariffs. And we are cracking down on supermarket price gouging because Australians should not need a forensic accounting degree to work out why a cucumber suddenly costs as much as a streaming subscription. These changes are practical. They are about wages, tax, super, families, small business and the cost of living. Or, in millennial terms, a few system updates have been installed and for once they're not asking us to accept cookies!”
“From 1 July, a whole range of changes come into effect that will make a real difference to Australian households. As a proud geriatric millennial, I have to say it is nice to see government policy for people who survived dial-up internet, MSN Messenger, WorkChoices, overpriced uni parking and being told for 20 years that, if we stopped buying avocado on toast, we could finally afford a house. From 1 July, every taxpayer gets another tax cut. Award workers and people on minimum wage will see their pay go up. Super will have to be paid on payday, not months later when everyone has forgotten about it, which is good because nothing says retirement security like actually receiving money you earned.”
“They should know whether they are entitled to meals, transport or accommodation, and they should know what information the airline must provide and when. Where a cancellation or significant delay is within the airline's control, consumers should not be pushed into accepting a travel credit when they are entitled to their money back, unless they prefer a credit. (Quorum formed)”
“The conflict in the Middle East has already prompted discussion about fuel supply chains and disruption. Australians should not be exposed to unreasonable price increases or any competitive conduct hidden behind international uncertainty. Airlines are entitled to recover legitimate costs. They are not entitled to use disruption as a general permission slip to treat passengers poorly. The ACCC will continue to deal with competition and Australian consumer law concerns, including misleading or deceptive conduct. The Aviation Consumer Protection Authority will focus on this aviation-specific framework. Those roles are complementary. A large part of this reform is about setting expectations in advance. When a flight is cancelled, passengers should know whether they can get a refund or a rebooking.”
“The objective is clear: protect consumers where the risk and volume justify regulation while avoiding unnecessary burdens on smaller operators that are that are essential to regional connectivity. This package should also be seen within the broader context of competition and consumer protection in aviation. The Albanese Labor government released the Aviation white paper , passed new laws to improve competition at Sydney airport, released the draft passenger charter of rights and reinstated ACCC monitoring of airlines. ACCC scrutiny is important because aviation is a concentrated market. Where there are fewer competitors. Consumers have fewer alternatives when prices rise or service drops. That is especially important during periods of global instability.”
“The minister will have powers to exempt individual entities or classes of entities from parts of the framework, including the charter, specified standards, levies or membership fees. The government has indicated that airports with fewer than one million passengers per year are intended to be exempt. That means the framework will apply to the largest airports while recognising the different position of smaller airports. Many smaller airports are council owned. They are critical community infrastructure. They often operate with limited resources and serve regional, rural and remote communities. It would make little sense to impose the same regulatory burden on a small regional airport as on a major capital city airport. Fairness cuts both ways.”
“Communities need confidence that complaints are reviewed independently. The levy bills support the framework by allowing the imposition and collection of levies to recover the administrative costs associated with the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority. It is appropriate that the cost of this framework be borne by the industry that has generated the need for regulation provided those costs are kept reasonable and proportionate. Nobody should pretend aviation is an easy sector to regulate. Airlines operate in a difficult commercial environment. Airports vary widely in size, capacity and ownership. Regional aviation faces different pressures. Fuel prices, international conflict, weather, workforce shortages and infrastructure constraints all affect operations, and that is why the package includes flexibility.”
“The Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson will provide an aviation-specific pathway for passengers whose complaints have not been resolved directly by the airline or airport. The ombudsperson will be able to assist through investigation, conciliation and determinations. Where a regulated entity has not acted fairly and reasonably, the ombudsperson will be able to require action. That gives consumers somewhere credible to go. It also gives industry a clearer process for resolving disputes. The package also establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson as a function within the department, independent of Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence. Aircraft noise is a serious concern for affected communities. For people living under flight paths, aircraft noise can affect sleep, amenity and wellbeing.”
“Individual complaints need to be resolved, but sector-wide patterns also need to be identified. If an airline repeatedly fails to communicate properly with passengers, that is not a series of random inconveniences. It is systematic failure. If accessibility services are repeatedly not delivered, that is not just poor customer service; it is a barrier to equal participation. The authority will be able to look across the sector, monitor compliance and take enforcement action where required. The bill also enables the authorisation of an independent external dispute resolution scheme known as the Aviation Consumer Ombuds Scheme. At present, too many passengers must pursue complaints through pathways that are confusing, slow and seen by many consumers as too close to the industry itself, and that does not build confidence.”
“The standards must protect consumers while still being practical for the sector to implement. The charter will deal with the minimum treatment consumers can expect from airlines and airports. That includes delays, cancellations, communication, complaint handling, booking information, baggage and accessibility. This is a necessary shift. Consumers should know what they are entitled to when a flight is disrupted. A right nobody understands is not much of a right at all. The bill also establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority as a regulatory function within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. The authority will be responsible for systematic monitoring, compliance and enforcement.”
“This bill package replaces uncertainty with clearer standards, weak complaint handling with independent dispute resolution and voluntary arrangements with proper oversight. It is the most significant aviation consumer protection reform ever introduced by an Australian government. The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 establishes the legal foundation for a new aviation consumer protection framework. It enables the creation of the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter. That charter will set minimum standards for airline services, airport services and airport accessibility services. The detail of those standards will be developed through subordinate legislation following consultation. That is a sensible way to proceed. Aviation is operationally complex.”
“Since then, airline performance has improved in some areas, but the underlying problem has not disappeared. The current system has relied too heavily on the industry policing itself. That has not produced the standard Australians are entitled to expect. The conflict in the Middle East has again reminded us global disruption can affect Australian travellers quickly. Flight routes can change, fuel supply chains can tighten, and international uncertainty can flow through domestic fares and services. Travellers should not be left at the gate trying to work out whether they are entitled to a refund, rebooking, accommodation, transport or basic information. People should not need to become amateur lawyers while standing in an airport queue.”
“Weather changes, aircraft require maintenance, crews have safety requirements, and global events can disrupt fuel markets and flight paths. Most people do not expect perfection. What they do expect is honesty, clear information, practical assistance and a complaint process that works. Too often that has not been the experience. Over recent years, Australians have dealt with cancelled flights, delays, missing baggage, damaged mobile aids, confusing travel credits, poor communication and a complaint system that leaves the passenger doing all the work. COVID-19 placed enormous strain on the aviation system. Families were separated, trips were cancelled, refunds were delayed, and many consumers were left unclear about their rights. The pandemic was extraordinary, but it exposed weaknesses that had been developing for some time.”
“Air travel is how families stay connected. It is how people get to weddings, funerals, medical appointments, work commitments and holidays saved for over many months I worked as an electrician, including as a FIFO electrician, and, for FIFO workers, flights are not an optional extra. They are how people get to site and how they get home. A delayed flight home after a long swing is not just a line on the departures board. It can mean missing dinner with kids, missing a school event or leaving a partner carrying the load for another night. Air travel connects workers to jobs, families to each other, regions to services and Australia to the world. Australians are reasonable people. They know that aviation is complex.”
“I rise to speak in support of the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026 and the related bills. At its heart, this package is about a simple standard. Australians who pay for air travel should be treated fairly, told clearly what is happening and given a proper pathway when things go wrong. That should not be controversial. In a country like Australia, aviation is not just another service; it is part of how our nation functions. I represent Moore in Western Australia. We live on the other side of the continent from this parliament and Western Australians understand distance in a very practical way. When a flight is delayed or cancelled in Perth, the alternative is rarely simple. You cannot just jump in the car after work and be in Canberra, Sydney or Brisbane the next morning. I have family across the country, as many Australians do.”
“It clarifies the definition of a 'subsidy' to better align with international obligations. It creates a slip rule so that obvious clerical and typographical errors can be corrected without requiring unnecessarily lengthy processes. It also clarifies that weighted average calculations can apply where there is only one transaction in the relevant period. I appreciate that this may not set hearts racing across the nation. But, for people dealing with custom processes, antidumping reviews and project based transactions, clarity in law is not academic. It affects decisions, costs and certainty. There is something to be said for a parliament that wants to fix the boring bits. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.”
“The current notification requirement can cause confusion and stress for people who are not respondents, are not subject to legal consequences and cannot formally respond in the complaint process. Removing that requirement is not weakening fairness; it is recognising that unnecessary notices can create more confusion than protection. The bill also assists former ADF members by expanding access to an account-based pension product through the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. Former defence personnel should have appropriate choice in managing their retirement income. This amendment gives eligible former ADF members another option without forcing them into it. That is a practical and respectful reform. Finally, the bill makes several technical amendments to customs and antidumping law.”
“That includes repealing acts that no longer serve a practical function because the schemes or bodies they dealt with have been either merged, sold, deregistered or otherwise overtaken by events. There is no public benefit in keeping dead law on the statute book as a kind of legislative museum exhibit. Parliament should be prepared not only to pass laws but to clean them up. This bill also improves the Australian Human Rights Commission's complaints process by removing an adverse-allegation notification requirement that has not worked as intended. Procedural fairness is important. I say that as a lawyer and as someone who has represented working people in workplace disputes. But procedural fairness must be directed to the people who are actually affected by the process and who have a proper role in it.”
“The proof-of-life reforms are also welcome. These requirements apply to certain older pension recipients who have been outside Australia for a continuous period. The purpose is understandable. The Commonwealth must ensure payments are made only where a person remains entitled to them. But the process should not be more burdensome than is necessary. The bill allows Services Australia to rely on information it already holds in certain circumstances and provides more flexibility on how proof-of-life certificates are completed. There is a serious policy objective here, but there is also a very human one. Elderly Australians should not be forced through unnecessary procedural steps if the government already has a reliable basis to verify the information. The bill also removes redundant legislation.”
“If a healthcare provider is trying to maintain accurate records, the system should not force them into a scavenger hunt. The bill also changes nominee cancellation processes in social security, family assistance and paid parental leave law. At present, a nominee who wants to cancel an arrangement may need to notify Services Australia in writing. That requirement might look tidy on paper, but it can create delay and difficulty in real life. In some situations, including family and domestic violence, a nominee arrangement may no longer be appropriate or safe. The system needs to be able to respond quickly. If a person has clearly communicated that they want an arrangement cancelled, the Commonwealth should not respond by saying, 'Thank you; now please provide that in writing.' That is not accountability; that is bureaucracy doing an encore.”
“It allows certain goods covered by a tariff concession order to be exempt from dumping and countervailing duties in particular circumstances without needing a further administrative decision. Again, the principle is simple: where the substantive basis has already been established, do not build a little administrative roundabout just so everyone has to drive around it. The bill also improves the operation of the Healthcare Identifiers Act. It allows date of death information to be disclosed in appropriate circumstances to healthcare providers and health administration entities. That allows patient records to be closed properly, and it avoids unnecessary work and cost. This is one of those areas where the law needs to catch up with ordinary reality.”
“If you've already told the Commonwealth something and the Commonwealth is able to lawfully and securely use that information, you should not have to keep telling it again. People in my electorate office in Joondalup do not come in because they are excited about an administrative process; they come in because something has gone wrong, something is delayed or they cannot get a clear answer. Often, the problem is not that the government has no information; the problem is that the information is sitting in the wrong part of the system behind the wrong door, requiring the person to prove the same thing again. This bill takes further steps to reduce that duplication.”
“It introduces a 12-month window between target cycles, so employers have time to assess the results of one cycle before setting the next. That is sensible. Gender equality targets should not be rushed out as a box-ticking exercise. Employers should be looking at their data, understanding what worked and what did not, and then setting targets that mean something. A target with proper analysis is more useful than a target set because the form is due on Friday. The bill also harmonises reporting periods for public sector and private sector employers. It will allow for more comparable data across sectors. Better data should lead to better decisions, and that is the point. The next part of the bill continues the government's move towards a 'tell us once' approach. That phrase should be understood in plain English.”
“If the appeal is not happening, stop pretending we need to wait for it. The bill also makes changes to business reporting. It aligns reporting under the New Eligible Drama Expenditure scheme, with calendar-year reporting used in other Australian content arrangements. That might sound small, but everyone who has had to report under overlapping schemes knows the irritation of different reporting periods that serve no obvious purpose. If one part of the system asks for the calendar year and another part asks for the financial year, the result is not better regulation; it is just more spreadsheets. I am not opposed to spreadsheets, but, like most things in life, they should exist for a reason. The bill also improves workplace gender equality reporting.”
“At the moment, where an importer receives a negative preliminary decision from an antidumping commissioner in relation to a partial refund, there can be a mandatory 30-day appeal period even where the importer has made clear they do not intend to appeal. In practical terms, everyone knows the importer is not appealing, but the system still stands around for a month looking at its watch. This bill allows the process to move on when the importer confirms they will not seek a review. That means faster finalisation and faster refunds where the importer is entitled to a payment. For a business managing cash flow, 30 days can be significant. It can be the difference between paying suppliers comfortably and making the awkward phone call no business owner wants to make. This is the kind of reform that should not be controversial.”
“Under the current framework, a missed renewal payment can have serious consequences. This bill introduces a grace period and simplifies the process. That is fair. Missing an administrative deadline should not automatically wipe out years of work where the problem can be fixed in a reasonable way. The bill also modernises references to international trademark arrangements, including the Madrid protocol and the Nice Classification system, so that Australian law remains aligned with systems used internationally. Again, that is not glamourous but it is necessary. Businesses operating across borders should not be forced through avoidable legislative lag because our references have not kept up with the international framework. The bill also streamlines the duty assessment process for importers.”
“If a lawyer is subject to disciplinary action, they should not be able to avoid scrutiny by simply deregistering. A professional standards regime that can be escaped by walking out the door is not much of a regime at all. These amendments allow complaints and disciplinary processes to continue in relation to conduct that happened while the person was registered. They also allow different re-registration requirements where appropriate. That is a basic integrity measure. The bill also makes sensible changes for plant breeders' rights. I will concede plant breeders' rights are not the subject most people in Moore raise with me while I'm at the shops. No-one has stopped me near the apples at Coles to demand urgent reform on the PBR renewal arrangements. But, for people who use the system, it is important.”
“At the moment, the registrar is generally limited to scheduled amounts, and that can be fine in ordinary processes, but it is not fine when a party behaves unreasonably, drags out the process or uses volume and delay as a commercial tactic. Anyone who has been near litigation knows the strategy. You bury the other side in paper, increase the cost and hope they give up before the merits of the case are properly tested. That is not justice; that is just attrition with a letterhead. These amendments will allow costs to be awarded in a way that better responds to poor conduct in the proceedings. That is a sensible safeguard for businesses that rely on the trademark system. The bill also closes a loophole for patent and trademark lawyers.”
“It does not pretend that regulatory reform is exciting. It just accepts that the boring bits of government still have to work. This amends a range of Commonwealth acts. Some of those amendments are technical, some are administrative and some will only affect a small number of people, but that is often how good government works. It is not always a press conference. Sometimes it is fixing the clause that has been annoying everyone for 15 years. The first set of reforms deals with intellectual property. For small businesses, intellectual property can be the difference between having a defensible product and watching someone else trade off their work. It gives the registrar of trademarks greater flexibility to award costs in contested trademark proceedings.”
“This bill is part of the government's broader work to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, improve productivity and make Commonwealth administration work better for Australians and Australian businesses. There is a habit in this place of talking about productivity as though it is created by saying 'productivity' loudly enough, but productivity is not created by slogans. It is created by practical changes, faster decisions, clearer rules, fewer duplicated processes and less time spent asking people to provide information the government already holds. Every unnecessary form, every avoidable delay, every duplicative reporting obligation is not just a nuisance; it is time and money that could have been spent serving customers, paying workers, investing in equipment or simply getting home on time. That is why this bill is worth supporting.”
“It needs to be safe, clear, labelled properly and capable of doing what it was designed to do. The same principle applies here. Good regulation protects people. It supports fair competition. It gives workers, consumers and businesses confidence. Bad regulation does something else. It protects no-one, helps no-one and survives mainly because everyone assumes someone else understands why it is there. That is how you end up with rules that require people to repeat information, wait out appeal periods that no-one is using or comply with reporting cycles that do not align with the real world. At that point, the process has stopped serving the public and has started serving itself, which is usually the first sign that parliament should get involved with a mop and a screwdriver.”
“I've said three times this week, I think, that I was an electrician before I became a lawyer. I've pulled cable through commercial buildings, underground car parks and mine sites, and I have worked with people who did not have the time for forms that asked the same question three times in slightly different ways, specifically take 5s. I've also worked as an industrial lawyer, where I saw how the rules protect people when they are clear, enforceable and properly targeted, and how they can become a burden when they are outdated, duplicated or badly designed. Good regulation is not about having more rules for the sake of it; it is about having rules that do the job. A good switchboard does not need every circuit doubled up just because someone was nervous in 1993.”
“I rise to support the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2026, and I accept at the outset that the words 'regulatory reform omnibus bill' are unlikely to start a stampede in the public gallery. They do not sound like the beginning of a great national moment. They sound like something you might be prescribed if sleep has become a problem. But for anyone who has run a business, worked in a trade, dealt with a government form, waited on a refund or had to tell the same thing to three different parts of the same system, this bill is real and matters more than I think anyone will fully understand. This is about making the machinery of government a bit less painful, and that is not a bad ambition. I come to this debate as someone who has spent most of my time, most of my working life, dealing with systems from the outside.”
“We cannot assume the opportunities available to the previous generations will automatically remain for the next. They will not without action, without reform and without political courage. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 20: 00”
“If you spend years telling people that every reform is a conspiracy, eventually, conspiracy becomes your policy platform. If you spend years feeding anger, eventually, someone else harvests it. Many Australians are genuinely worried. They are worried about housing, they are worried about the cost of living, and they are worried about whether their children will have the same opportunities they had. Those concerns are real, and they deserve respect, but concern is not a policy, anger is not a plan, and slogans are not solutions. Australia faces serious challenges: housing affordability, skills shortages, health workforce shortages, productivity, energy transition and defence capability. They require serious responses, not memes, not outrage and not slogans.”
“They require training, they require investment, and they require decent wages and decent conditions, yet the same political movement now promising miracles spent decades attacking both. Western Australians remember wage suppression, they remember privatisation, they remember outsourcing, and they remember being told that private operators could somehow deliver better services while paying workers less. That theory never quite survived contact with reality. Whenever conservatives speak warmly about efficiency, workers have learned to check whether their pay packet is about to become more efficient as well. There is a broader lesson in the politics of grievance. If you spend years telling people that institutions cannot be trusted, eventually, they stop trusting yours.”
“Apparently, every problem can be solved with a new building, a new announcement and an artist's impression, but hospitals do not operate themselves, schools do not teach themselves, buildings are not health care, and buildings are not education, people are. The challenge facing Western Australia is not only infrastructure, it is workforce. You can announce a hospital every week, if you like, but where are the doctors coming from? Where are the nurses coming from? Where are the allied health workers coming from? Where are the teachers coming from? Where are the electricians, plumbers and construction workers coming from? Last time I checked, none of those professions could be manufactured in a press release.”
“That is the Australia I believe in. I was an apprentice electrician, I've worked on construction sites in the resources sector and in labour hire, I've been a publican, I went to university, and I studied law and worked in an industrial office at an employment lawyer. That is what Australia is supposed to be, not 'the lucky country' where people usually use that phrase. The author never intended it as a compliment. Australia succeeds when it is the land of opportunity—a country where people can reinvent themselves and a country where your starting point does not determine your destination. That is worth protecting. In Western Australia, we are seeing a familiar political cycle emerge. The Liberal Party has discovered hospitals! The Liberal Party has discovered schools! The Liberal Party has discovered public services!”
“Governments have a responsibility not to the next headline but to the next generation, and Australians deserve better than a permanent panic campaign from people who often have a direct interest in nothing changing. If housing remains unaffordable, some people make money. If wages remain suppressed, some people make money. If inequality grows, some people make money. When the government tries to change those outcomes, we are suddenly told the sky is falling while those people who make money shoot themselves into the sky. This budget reflects a simple principle: Australia should remain a country where hard work is rewarded, where a young person can realistically aspire to own their own home, where wages grow, where public service remains strong and where opportunity is not reserved for those fortunate enough to already have wealth.”
“There is an old saying that, if you repeat something often enough, people will eventually accept it as fact. These days, that appears to be the business model of large sections of the political commentary industry—not journalism and not analysis but commentary. Every budget, every reform and every proposal is pushed through the same narrow filter. If working people benefit, it is somehow irresponsible; if investors receive a tax concession, it is somehow economic genius. If wages go up, it is inflationary; if profits go up, it is market efficiency. If government attempts to deal with problems that have been building for decades, we are told civilisation itself is on the edge of collapse. The reality is less dramatic. Budgets involve choices.”
“They are standing against the small transport businesses and owner-drivers who need a fairer threshold because gross income is not the same as take-home income. They are standing against a more efficient Fair Work Commission, even though delay hurts workers and employers alike. This bill does not ask employers to do anything unreasonable. It says that, where employers bargain properly, where they provide secure jobs and fair conditions and where they contribute more to a cooperative workplace relations system, that should be recognised. That is not anti-business; that is pro-business. I commend the bill to the House.”
“It should not be controversial to say that public money should support employers who bargain properly, comply with the law and provide decent jobs. The businesses that do the right thing should not be undercut by competitors whose business models rely on minimum standards, insecure work and avoiding bargaining wherever possible. This is where the opposition's arguments fall apart. They say they are standing up for business, but, in opposing this bill, they are standing against the businesses that have done the work to negotiate proper agreements with their employees. They are standing against employers who value certainty. They are standing against employers who understand that good wages, proper consultation and safe systems of work are not obstacles to productivity but part of productivity.”
“A fair workplace relations system must protect workers, give employers certainty, support bargaining and equip the independent umpire to resolve disputes properly. Those opposite no doubt say this bill is about favouring unions, and that is the usual line. It misses the point entirely. This bill is not about punishing businesses; it is about recognising businesses that do the right thing. If an employer sits down with its workforce, bargains in good faith, reaches a genuine enterprise agreement, pays fair wages, provides secure conditions and gives workers a voice, why should the Commonwealth be prevented from taking that into account? The Liberal Party says it supports business, but too often what it supports is the lowest common denominator.”
“Proposed expanded grounds for dismissing applications were not proceeded with. That is what consultation should do. It should test the drafting, identify the risks and improve the final bill. The financial impact of this bill is modest, and no additional funding is provided. Measures supporting the more efficient commission processes are expected to have a minor positive impact on the commission and help it respond to increased lodgements. The common thread through this bill is practical improvement. It helps the Fair Work Commission deal with disputes more efficiently. It supports enterprise bargaining and supported bargaining. It allows Commonwealth purchasing power to promote fairer wages and secure jobs where appropriate. It recognises the real economics of road transport. It supports tripartite consultation in construction.”
“If a contract is terminated unfairly or unfair terms shift too much risk down the chain, the impact can be immediate and severe. Road transport is essential to the Australian economy. Goods move because truck drivers and transport businesses do the work. The law should reflect the commercial reality they face. I also note that this bill has been subject to consultation. The department has consulted with state and territory government officials, the Fair Work Commission and key stakeholders, including the ACTU, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. As a result of that consultation, the bill was refined. Party consent is now required before the commission can determine certain contested disputes on the papers.”
“That is necessary because conventional high-income thresholds are not fit for purpose in road transport. A contractor may appear to have a higher income on paper, but the reality is different once fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, finance, registration, compliance and downtime are all taken into account. Gross income is not the same as take-home income. In road transport, that distinction counts. The purpose of this reform is to ensure more truckies can access the quick and practical process in the Fair Work Commission to challenge unfair contracts. For many road transport contractors and small transport businesses, unfair contract terms and unfair termination can have serious consequences. A truck is a major capital investment.”
“The forum is a tripartite body that brings together government, employers and workers to provide advice on work in the building and construction industry. This bill updates the ministerial membership of the forum to reflect the machinery-of-government changes and recognises the strong skills component of its work. That is sensible. You cannot have a serious discussion about construction without discussing skills. Apprenticeships, training quality, workforce shortages and pathways into trades are central to the future of the industry. The final major area of the bill concerns road transport. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring truckies get a fair go. This bill allows a new road transport industry high-income threshold to be made for contractors in the transport industry.”
“The research into FIFO mental health has made those issues plain. The Western Australian report into FIFO arrangements found that FIFO workers and their partners are an at-risk group for mental ill health. It also identified the importance of roster design, workplace culture, accommodation, bullying, stigma and support services. That is why bargaining is important. It is not only about the hourly rate. It is about the structure of work. It is about rosters, fatigue management, travel, accommodation, consultation, dispute resolution and safety. It is about whether workers have a real and lawful mechanism to raise issues before they become crises. The bill also supports the National Construction Industry Forum.”
“That bargaining involves workers performing skilled and demanding work in one of the most economically significant regions in the country. Electricians, technicians, maintenance workers and other tradespeople keep critical operations running. The work is complex. The environment is demanding. Their contribution should be reflected in the agreements that cover them. I understand from my own working life what those kinds of rosters mean. During my time as a construction electrician, I worked a four weeks on, one week off roster. From outside the industry, people just see the headline wages. They do not see the cost of being away for long stretches—missed birthdays, pressure placed on partners, strain on children and the difficulty of coming home and trying to fit back into family routines before leaving again.”