NFAW Response to the Attorney-General’s second discussion paper: further strengthening the civil compliance and enforcement framework

This submission is being made by the National Foundation for Australian Women (NFAW).

NFAW is dedicated to promoting and protecting the interests of Australian women, including intellectual, cultural, political, social, economic, legal, industrial and domestic spheres, and ensuring that the aims and ideals of the women’s movement and its collective wisdom are handed on to new generations of women. NFAW is a feminist organisation, independent of party politics and working in partnership with other women’s organisations.

The bundle of behaviours called wage theft refers to employer non-compliance with minimum standards in base wages, loadings, overtime or superannuation. While widespread, wage theft is not gender neutral. The behaviour involved most commonly and most significantly affects low paid employees in part-time and casual work—all groups in which women predominate (Gilfillan, 2018; UnionsACT, 2018, p. 6); It is also commonplace in industries in which women predominate, including healthcare and social assistance ($220 million), accommodation and food services ($190 million) and retail ($180 million) (PwC, 2019). While it disproportionately affects migrant workers, among migrant workers it disproportionately affects women (Berg and Farbenblum, 2017, p. 32).

This submission complements our response to the Attorney-General’s previous discussion paper, which focussed on the penalty regime for wage theft.

Recommendations

In our response to the Attorney-General’s first, narrowly focussed discussion paper we made the point that neither that paper nor the options relating to remedies came to terms with the extent and implications of non-compliance with legal wage and entitlements requirements. In our view the same reasoning applies to the issues raised in this, the second discussion paper. The reach of wage theft is in itself an indicator that the FWO is unable to make a significant impact on the problem, and selected amendments to the FWO’s compliance and enforcement regime extend its coverage. Indeed, no small government agency would have the reach or the resources to do so.

Leaving the matter to the FWO, even with more resources and sharpened legislative instruments, is the moral equivalent of walking away. The wage theft regime must be broadened.

 

READ FULL PAPER