Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Today, just eight business days after the introduction into the House of perhaps the most significant industrial relations reform proposed since the WorkChoices legislation in 2006, I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.

Coming from a family of small business owners, and having managed, built and grown multi-employee businesses across several sectors, I confess that while I welcome discussion around this reform I am immediately concerned that the due process that should support a robust consideration of legislation of this magnitude is being severely truncated. With my most recent experience having been in the area of building communities and campaigns to bring people, businesses and organisations along when advocating for significant reform, there is much in this current process that leaves me feeling that, despite assurances, this rushed process isn't in everyone's best interest. There will be many in my community who will be left with significant concerns as to what this legislation means for them, their businesses and, indeed, their jobs.

Ultimately, I suggest that even after a flurry of briefings, which I've been grateful for, and a commitment to personally review every proposed drafted amendment, this bill still has a long way to go. Surely, if we're to learn anything from the failed WorkChoices legislation it is that it's worth doing the work well right from the beginning rather than rushing headlong into significant reform which has not been tested for any of its unintended consequences.

There are elements in this bill which I support, such as measures to improve job security and gender equity, and in enhancing the antidiscrimination framework. I'm also satisfied with the simplification of the better off overall test, which unions and employers worked together to improve. There are, however, elements in this bill which currently concern the people of North Sydney and me, including the potential for small businesses to be caught up in what may be complicated multi-employer bargaining agreements and how the construction industry will be regulated following the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Disappointingly, what is also clear is that this process of legislating is a far cry from the Prime Minister's pre-election promise to lead a government that includes more Australians in politics and restores trust in our parliament. Under the guise of a pre-election promise to 'get wages moving', Australians, including those in my electorate of North Sydney, have been blindsided by some of the measures in this bill. To be clear, the people of North Sydney did not grant the minister a mandate to ram through a piece of reform as substantial as multi-employer bargaining, and while there have been assurances of large organisations having been involved in negotiations around this legislation, it remains the case that, when it comes to true engagement, most ordinary people in my community have not had a voice on the shape and form of this bill.

As a recently elected Independent MP, I have now had a glimpse of the so-called backroom deals which seem to be done in this place. We have seen here and in the media intense lobbying from the big end of town, those with the power and resources to access the parliament. In this I count large employer groups—businesses—and large union representatives. Individual employees, small and medium businesses and workers in the low-paid industries, who the government are wielding in advance to push their arguments forward, are largely absent. I have heard from them in North Sydney, and I am bringing their views to you here today, but the fact remains that this is a deal being done largely behind closed doors, and that's not good for our democracy. The overwhelming theme coming from my community is that reforms such as this should be duly prosecuted and duly reviewed. To do that, we need time to consider the implications of the bill. It is disappointing that in this case our government has chosen not to heed that call.

One thing is clear: we have a wicked economic challenge ahead of us. In the government's issues paper for the Jobs and Skills Summit it outlined that 'to support full employment, stronger economic growth, sustainable increases in real wages and higher living standards, we need to prioritise productivity growth'. With unemployment now down to 3.4 per cent and wage growth still low at 2.6 per cent, we do need to look at mechanisms for driving wage growth, and improved productivity growth is a key driver of that. Ultimately though, to drive wage growth we need a gamut of changes, not the ideological pursuit of a single reform. We need improved workforce planning, we need to strengthen education and skills to meet the needs of employers in our ever-evolving economy and we need to support business innovation and investments in new technology. To address the cost-of-living concerns we must also tackle the root cause of inflation and consider where the government's mantra of getting wages moving sits in the broader economic circumstance. If wage increases driven by increased bargaining are not backed by productivity gains, the result may well be a weaker economy, and there will be no benefits for workers.

Fundamental to our current industrial relations environment is the award system, which here in Australia has been progressively streamlined from 1,000 to 122 awards. While streamlining may have seemed desirable, the reality is that many of these awards are now far more complicated. As such, navigating them can be challenging, particularly for businesses who are do not have a human resource function, which, let's face it, is the majority of small businesses across our country. We must continue to work to ensure the awards we have in place are unambiguous and transparent so businesses and employees can get the true benefits of this foundational aspect of our industrial relations system.

Ironically, the recent success of the government's position supporting a wage increase for aged-care workers shows that this pathway of reform—that is, lifting the level of underlying awards—is indeed one of the fastest ways to move the dial on wages in Australia. I warmly welcome the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission to lift the award wage in aged care by 15 per cent and, in particular, the acceptance during that hearing of expert evidence that care work 'has been historically undervalued, and the reason for that undervaluation is likely to be gender based'. We know that over a third of all Australian women are employed in the health care, social assistance, and education and training sectors, with their average weekly earnings below the national average. Improving their pay and conditions would help close the gender pay gap.

Arguably, government led advocacy around increasing the award wages is going to bring about wage increases at a faster pace than this new proposed process of negotiated EBAs, which, by the minister's own admission, may take 12 months or more to get wages moving. I call on the government to back an increase to the minimum wage for all low-paid workers by committing to fund the increase in its submission to the Fair Work Commission.

Moving now to part 3 of the bill, which abolishes the Building and Construction Commission, or the ABCC, the construction industry, which employs roughly 1.15 million people, is operating at close to full capacity, with increased residential housing investments and infrastructure spends right across the country, including in my electorate of North Sydney. It faces challenges, like many other industries, like disruptions in global supply chains and shortage of labour. I've spoken to residential builders in my electorate of North Sydney who are fearful that the abolition of the ABCC will drive negative cultural changes in the commercial sector, which, due to the high levels of overlap with subcontractors, will flow through to the residential building sector, and that there's an unseen consequence flowing down the line. Furthermore, the Master Builders Association estimates the abolition of the ABCC may result in an 8.8 per cent increase in labour costs and a decline of nearly 10 per cent in productivity.

I can see some of the ABCC functions have been allocated to the Fair Work Ombudsman, which the government describes a 'full-service regulator'. But I am yet to be convinced that the Fair Work Ombudsman has adequate specialist construction competency or industry knowledge. We must also ensure there is not a vacuum left in the regulatory environment which will address safety and productivity on work sites.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate the danger in the speed at which some of these measures have been pursued. I support the inclusion of the review period, but think that a five-year review period is far too long and this should be shortened to two years at the most. I would encourage the government to take a collaborative and constructive approach to the review, keeping a watching brief on the implementation of the bill. In the words of a constituent of North Sydney, 'Develop a plan that makes Australia more productive, equitable and happy.' I'd like to work with the government to develop that plan, which needs to go well beyond the scope of this current bill.

See this speech in context