Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's clear that the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is nothing more than unionism gone mad. I'm compelled to speak in opposition to these radical reforms not just for the sake of common sense prevailing, not for the sake of smart and successful business practice but, more importantly, for the sake of small, medium, and large business owners in my electorate of Dawson.

The government's role is simple: set up business for success. These reforms do not do that. These reforms put the agenda of the unions first and the interests of business second. Never once have I heard from a small business owner, 'I would love nothing more than to bargain with the unions.' You see, if this legislation were put into effect in its current form, family businesses in Dawson such as a petrol station, an independent supermarket or a cafe would be facing infiltration from the unions when they simply work to serve the community and provide for their families. I visit local businesses in Dawson every week and I can see the hard work, the long hours and the personal resources that are poured out by hardworking residents for their businesses to succeed.

Small business makes up 98 per cent of Australian business, and 4.7 million of our jobs are in small business. These guys have been through so much already. Through COVID they were emotionally and financially depleted, and this just may be the tipping point for them. This bill will undermine the autonomy of business, undermine and compromise competition and allow unions to infiltrate small business. It will lead to job losses, will lead to more strikes and industrial action and will unfairly target small business. This bill doesn't improve the lives of Australians; provide long-term, sustainable, real wage growth; make a fairer system for individual businesses; increase productivity; or reduce the cost-of-living pressures.

I want to see real wages increase. This side of the chamber wants to see real wages increase. Of course we do. We want what is best for all Australians, and that's why we oppose this legislation. This bill is about the Labor government reimbursing their union masters, who have given them over $100 million—yes, over $100 million. In doing that, this reckless government is trying to rush through the most radical reforms to industrial relations in recent memory without listening to the Australian people, without allowing for a sufficient scrutiny process and without consulting with the business community. I haven't even had time to consult with my constituents or the businesses in my electorate that this will impact.

At the election, Labor made no indication that they wanted to introduce these radical reforms. They said the opposite. These are the biggest IR reforms since the GST was introduced. When the Howard government undertook the GST reforms, they held countless consultations and many inquiries to ensure that their reforms were the right fit for all Australians and for the future of the nation, but what we have here is a bill sneaking through by stealth. This bill is off. It's bad for Australians, it's bad for business and it sets us a very dangerous path.

Labor claimed that this radical legislation will be one size fits all, a magic bullet that puts more money in the pockets of workers. It will increase inflation and increase the cost-of-living pressures. Anyone who runs a small business knows that time and resources are precious. This bill accounts for none of that. A small business with a few employees doesn't have the capacity to have a HR department. In a complex system of multi-employer bargaining small businesses will be left vulnerable to over-reaching unions and lawyers.

This bill wants to make unique and varied businesses conform to a static standard. It does this under a stealthy principle called common interest. It will lead to under-resourced small business relying on big business to negotiate their own terms and conditions, resulting in the final agreed conditions being likely to be an ill fit for the needs of their organisation, thus making their operations unaffordable.

Let me give you an example, Deputy Speaker. In Mackay, in my electorate of Dawson, we have a major shopping centre called caneland. It could be deemed that the businesses that operate in the shopping centre are compelled to bargain together because of their common interest. Under this ambiguous structure the tenants of caneland will have to enter into negotiations and reach a static and uniform agreement on their employees' conditions. So you could end up with a situation where a locally-owned cafe is required to have the same agreement as a major department store within the same complex, yet these two stores are worlds apart. They have different customers, different operations, different objectives, different opening hours and different staffing numbers. One has an HR department. The other doesn't. One has the owner doing the books. The other has a large finance team. One has mostly casual or junior staff. The other predominantly employs permanent, full-time or part-time staff. One has to close the business around holiday periods or when a family emergency arises. The other has predictable opening hours. Yet because of their geographical common interest under this bill they could be considered the same. In the real world the cafe owner simply may not have the time, the staff or the capabilities to enter into complex bargaining negotiations like the department store, let alone the capacity to deal with the workers' strikes in the interim. To make the process simple they may have to defer the legwork to the HR team in the department store, meaning the finalised agreement would likely favour the interests of the department store over the cafe.

Business groups across Australia are united in their concern about this bill and its severe consequences that may force them to bargain together. Even the crossbench is against these radical laws, so that's saying something. This union-pleasing Labor government is treating all small businesses with contempt.

Principally, the government should only be introducing industrial relations reforms if they are designed to lift both productivity and wages. This bill will not achieve that. If small, medium and large enterprises are slapped with unsustainable agreements it will reduce their productivity, cut jobs and, in most cases, they will have to close the doors.

Picking up on the example of the cafe and the department store once again, should the cafe find themselves having to achieve the working hours, the contracts and the wages tailored to suit the department store needs, it is entirely possible that the cafe could find itself in an agreement that is untenable for its unique circumstances, which could lead them to shutting their doors for good. It leaves the student, the mother, the owner without a job. It's not a wage increase if you don't have a job.

This bill is a huge impost to small business, which is the backbone of our nation. I believe we should be making life easier for small-business owners, not more difficult. At a time of an inflation crisis and energy woes that are going to leave our country extremely vulnerable, and create a significant cost, this government is deciding to experiment with the Australian economy, the household budget and the working businesses of our nation. It is foolish. It is irresponsible. They are more interested in ideological battles and lining their pockets with union money than in helping everyday Australians. The Labor government are blindsiding the nation and further jeopardising businesses, who have already been through so much. These industrial laws are a disgrace and should never become law in this country. And it is all for the sake of the $100 million that has lined Labor's pockets. Look after Australia. Do your job.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context