Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

If there's a lesson from this year's federal election it's that voters were sick of how politics operated in this country. They were hungry for change and wanted a new politics, one characterised by fairness, integrity, transparency, accountability and proper process. That's what voters were promised and that's what we wanted and that's what they deserved. And that's what we have seen from the new government on a number of issues. In general they have been consultative and have been guided by proper process. It has been a welcome change.

But there is a jarring contrast between those processes of good government and how this government has proceeded with the industrial relations reform. Some aspects of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 are the cumulation of constructive negotiations between employer and employee organisations over a number of years, and I commend those. But others, including compulsory multi-employer bargaining, were not. It is those aspects which fail the government's own test of proper process. These aspects of the bill were not in Labor's election policy; they were not canvassed at the Jobs and Skills Summit; and they were not subject to consultation.

Now the government are seeking to guillotine debate and force this bill through this House without time to understand the bill, talk to those who will be affected or identify unintended consequences. This isn't a way to make policy or to pass legislation. Particularly not for a policy area like industrial relations, which is notoriously complex. Even well-intentioned changes can end up backfiring, like the better off overall test which was introduced by Labor in 2008 and is being fixed by Labor 2022. This is why government legislation needs scrutiny and input from stakeholders from right across the spectrum. Without it we're going to repeat the mistakes of the past rather than learn from them. It's disappointing that government have gone down this path so far, but it's not too late for them to do the right thing and change course.

Looking at the provisions of the bill there are some aspects that are really welcome and which I support. I particularly support changes which assist in securing wages for low-paid workers. I was really heartened by Fair Work's recent decision to raise aged-care wages by 15 per cent and would love to see it rolled out into other areas with underpaid workforces, particularly in the caring sector. There could be tweaks made to the supported bargaining stream to make it more effective. Defining low-wage workers would help overcome one of the obstacles that has stopped this stream being used in the recent past. But these are quibbles, and I have no wish to delay these parts of the bill. I also strongly support the changes which would make it faster and more certain for enterprise bargains to be approved by Fair Work after they have secured backing from employers and employees. This is crucial. This includes reforms to the better off overall test and removing some impediments to the approvals process.

But there are other aspects to the bill which aren't as welcome. The most concerning is changing multi-employer bargaining from a stream where both parties need to opt into a stream to a stream where employees can compel the other side to join a negotiation or an existing agreement spanning other workplaces. Where this occurs an employer doesn't get to choose whether they want to bargain with other businesses, they don't get to choose which other businesses participate and they don't have the right to stop their workforce joining an existing agreement which may not be a good fit for the business.

This sort of change should be subject to wider public debate. It is not something that was widely discussed or understood during the election campaign, during the Jobs and Skills Summit or in subsequent discussions which I and the business community have had with government. It is a basic principle of government that you should engage the community on major reform before embarking upon it: set out the problem the country faces, tell us the solution you think is best and why the alternative options are inferior. Make your case, engage in the debate and convince the community to back your ideas. That's what I want to see, and it's what most Australians want to see. Australians would rather see lasting policy reform than have an industrial relations ping-pong with each change of government, as the coalition undoes Labor's policies and Labor unpicks the coalition's policies. That is no way to run a country.

One benefit of a national debate is that people know what to expect and can have their voices heard. It really troubles me that this bill is going to have a huge impact on thousands of smaller businesses around Australia, but most of them aren't even aware that it's coming. I've spoken to a number of business owners who simply don't understand the bill or what it means for them. When they learn that it could mean certain decisions affecting their business will be taken away from them and given to their workers or to the Fair Work Commission, they become truly alarmed. If I were still running a small business I would be alarmed too.

This isn't a piecemeal change but a transformation about how businesses interact with their staff, particularly smaller businesses. Even experienced industrial relations specialists aren't sure how it's going to work in practice, which means that no businessperson can possibly know. I don't think anybody knows, not even the decision-makers in the government. Small business owners have made it through the incredibly difficult times of COVID and got past lockdowns and restrictions, only to be faced with labour shortages, rapidly-rising interest rates, rapidly-rising electricity prices and a potential recession. They've struggled to hold on through perhaps the most difficult commercial environment in this country's history—and it's about to get a whole lot harder for them.

We can do much better than this. The best thing the government can do today is to split the bill into two parts. One part could encompass the support for higher wages in low-wage industries, along with measures that have been subject to broad consultation and which are generally agreed on all sides. This could easily pass the parliament, immediately supporting immediate wage rises for low-income workers, which I support 100 per cent. The other part of the bill could undergo further consultation and scrutiny, ensuring that legitimate concerns are heard and resolved, and exploring all the possible consequences of the bill. This would not hold up wage rises for low-income workers but it would be a sensible approach to contentious reform.

That is why I have prepared a second reading amendment to hold back the most contentious parts of the bill until they can undergo appropriate scrutiny. Splitting the bill is the best thing this House could do to improve the IR bill, and so I move:

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

"until an inquiry into parts 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the bill is undertaken by a House or Senate committee, with the inquiry lasting not less than 90 days".

I will also move substantive amendments to the bill reflecting other concerns.

I believe that multi-employer bargaining should not be compulsory, or should be voluntary, or, if the government insists on its approach, that it changes the common interest and public interest tests so that workplaces cannot be roped into a bargain that has no merit. I also believe that the threshold for small businesses needs to be more than 15 people. A cafe or a retail outlet in Wentworth often has more than 15 employees, but these are not big businesses. They're not Coles or Woolworths, and they should not be treated as though they are. I also believe disputes over flexible work arrangements shouldn't go straight from a discussion between an employer and employee to Fair Work arbitration, an exercise that can cost tens of thousands of dollars and ruin the relationship between an employer and an employee. Let's put a step in between, where both parties can engage in conciliation with guidance and support from Fair Work before we bring in the lawyers. And I believe there should be an independent statutory review of the changes within 12 months to tell us if the changes are working as intended.

These changes would mitigate some of the harm the bill might impose on our economy, but they're not my preferred approach. My preferred approach would be that the government went back to first principles with its industrial relations policy and remembered that productivity drives wages. There's a lot we can do to accelerate productivity growth, but award modernisation would have to be near the top of that list—make awards simpler. Simplicity benefits employees and employers. It means employees can genuinely understand the conditions of their employment and are able to call out right from wrong, and it means employers can genuinely understand what their employees expect and deserve from them.

Under the current system, employees and employers inadvertently breach the same rules all the time. Awards should be so simple that that isn't possible. They should be so simple that a 15-year-old working their first job can understand an agreement, their rate of pay and whether their boss is following the rules. That's not currently possible with the general retail award, which runs to more than 100 pages.

Minister, I promise you: if you modernise the award, you will support employment, wage and productivity growth in this country. It will not be an easy process, but it will certainly be worthwhile and make a lasting impact on our economy. As it currently stands, I cannot in good conscience support the bill. The policy process has been flawed and the legislation itself is flawed. It will harm our economy and the very workers the government wants to support. This is why I propose amendments and why, if they are not successful, I will vote to oppose the bill and will be encouraging others to do so. I move:

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

"until an inquiry into parts 11, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the bill is undertaken by a House or Senate committee, with the inquiry lasting not less than 90 days".

See this speech in context