Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

Let's be clear: the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill is the Labor government's payday, and payback and power for the unions. The most militant of Australia's unions pour multimillions of dollars into Labor campaigns and control the Labor Party itself. This bill will be at the expense of small, medium and large businesses, courtesy of the Labor government.

Measures in this bill are going to cost the economy as well as individual small, medium and large businesses. The abolition of the ABCC alone is going to cost the Australian economy $47.5 billion, as estimated by EY, between now and 2030. The EY report also said there will be a decline in the output of the construction sector and a fall in manufacturing output. And the expansion of multi-employer bargaining and increased strike rights will come on the back of rising inflation and rising interest rates, with absolutely no productivity gains at all for business, industry or the broader economy. There will be extensive and protracted strikes, as we've seen previously; increased costs for business and consumers; and no increase in productivity and fewer jobs.

The abolition of the ABCC effectively gives control of Australia's fifth-largest industry to the CFMMEU, a construction industry that contributes nine per cent to GDP and employs 1.15 million people. As has been the CFMMEU's history, there will be even more union aggression, thuggery, bullying, intimidation and strikes on building sites, with flow-on additional cost to domestic housing construction.

Businesses are desperately concerned about this bill, and we can especially see that through some of the sectors, including mining and the resource sector, that are all opposed to patent bargaining or multi-employer bargaining. They know that not only is this bad for their businesses, but it also runs counter to the monetary policy efforts of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank governor has also said we need to preserve the flexibility in the labour market.

Now we all know that patent bargaining totally ignores the differences and complexities faced by businesses in various locations and markets around Australia. And local workers in each area or community have a very sound understanding of the capacity of their business and the business they work in to pay and come to agreements around terms and conditions. The businesses themselves value their employees, knowing that they are critical to the success of that business. No longer will businesses be the decision-makers with their employees. Along with employees, the Labor government, via the unions and Fair Work Commission, will dictate terms and conditions, particularly in areas of common interest, for businesses whether they be in Augusta, in my part of the world, in Sydney, in Perth or even in Donnybrook—great diversity there!

The Fair Work Commission will not have any idea how their unilateral multi-employer bargaining decisions will impact in practice, in real terms, on the great complexity of businesses located in rural, regional and remote parts of Australia. But the fair work decision will be the same for each of these businesses, irrespective of their specific circumstances, locations or markets. That's one-size-fits-all with civil penalties for companies, and the battlelines are already drawn. We've seen John Setka on the warpath already. Building and construction sites are in the firing line, and won't there be a free-for-all at the ports. There'll be impacts on logistics, supply chains, imports, exports and the impact on perishable products is also ahead in Labor's rush to go back to the pre-Hawke and Keating years. We've seen the NFF come out about being concerned about what this will do to the ag sector.

A recent Productivity Commission report into lifting productivity at Australia's container ports stated that productivity growth has been one of the primary drivers of increasing living standards for Australians, and that restrictions on how workers are deployed by a business might mean that the costs of producing a service are higher than they need be. The report also said that, if unanticipated disruptions or shocks within input markets are not met, businesses will likely face higher costs and lower profitability and that ultimately the broader community bears these costs through price rises or temporary shortages of supply.

For the first time we see small businesses with the unions in their businesses, and this really appals me. It concerns me greatly, as it does those small businesses. Labor has frequently quoted COSBOA as supporting multi-employer bargaining. Well, I've never had a small business asking for the unions to control their business. Small business is defined as those with 20 or fewer employees, but now small businesses with between 15 and 20 employees are in the firing line. Small businesses will either actively reduce their existing workforce to stay below the 15-employee threshold to limit exposure to the unions, or they will limit business growth to stay below the 15-employee threshold.

I've already had businesses that are aware of the impacts of Labor's changes saying this is exactly what they will have to do. They cannot afford to be in the firing line, so there'll be fewer jobs and fewer flexible jobs. It's often small business that gives people their first job, and often their last job, in life. Small to medium businesses employ 97 per cent of people employed in Australia, and many of those will be caught by this legislation and will have unions knocking on their doors. These are the businesses that don't have a dedicated HR department. They're often small businesses with 20 or fewer employees who work their hearts out in their businesses in our communities in rural and regional areas.

But what is equally concerning is the 60,000 businesses that are currently employing between 20 and 40 people and that will now be dictated to by Labor and the unions. How many of these will reduce their workforce and businesses to sit below that 15-employee limit? And how many of these same small businesses will not be able to compete for employees when other sectors have been forced to increase their terms and conditions by Labor, the unions and the Fair Work Commission? I've met a number of businesses that are particularly concerned about this, and I've got example after example of businesses doing everything they can to employ as many people as possible to give them that opportunity.

We know that this is bad legislation for inflation, bad for productivity and bad for jobs. What the unions will have now is extraordinary and uncapped power to place demands on businesses for continuous pay rises and changes to terms and conditions, all determined by Labor, unions and the Fair Work Commission. I know of one particular business, one of the employers who has over 15 employees, that makes a special effort to make sure that as many women who have kids at school are employed between school hours. She employs people to be on the earlier shift and then employs these particular employees during those hours to give them a great opportunity. Then there's another group that comes in after that. This legislation is going to affect her. It's going to affect bakeries. It will affect restaurants as well because, if you're serving lunch and dinner, that will put you above that headcount of 15, and that will put you fairly in the firing line.

There are a number of other sectors that will be affected. I'm loath to actually mention businesses by name in this parliament. I don't want to see them targeted at all, but I know that that is what will happen in various sectors as a result of this. And it will happen; we have seen this previously, and we will see it again.

This is bad legislation. It is bad for inflation, it is bad for productivity and it is bad for jobs. With those comments, I will complete my remarks.

See this speech in context