Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to admit that the name of this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, caused me to raise my eyebrows. You have to applaud the government for simplifying this legislation down to four words that, without context, sound fantastic. After all, who doesn't want secure jobs and better pay? I'm all for it. If this legislation even remotely delivered on what the name suggested, I'd vote for it. I will always do what I think is right and in the best interests of my community and I consider all legislation carefully and on its merits, and I'm concerned about this.

While there are some positive aspects to the bill, it falls short. It's a large and complex piece of legislation, and we've had it for just a few weeks—not nearly enough time to appropriately scrutinise a 250-page bill that also has a 260-page explanatory memorandum. It also doesn't leave the necessary time for me to consult widely with my community as to what this would mean for them.

There are over 37,000 small businesses in Tasmania, 30,000 of which are employers. They make up more than 96 per cent of all businesses in Tasmania and provide more than half of the private sector employment in our state. In my electorate of Bass alone, there are more than 3,000 small businesses and, as their federal representative, it's my job to ensure that government legislation that best supports them is in place.

Without a doubt, I would say that almost all employers and employees in my northern Tasmanian region would not have the faintest idea what this bill will mean for them. After a tumultuous few years emerging from the pandemic and at a time of growing inflation, businesses are struggling with staff shortages and rapidly increasing power costs. I can't understand why the government wants to thrust these workplace changes upon the hardworking small business owners in my electorate. What work has Labor done to engage the business owners in electorates across the country? Why is there such a rush to push this through, if not just to appease the unions?

This bill creates drastic changes to our industrial relations system, and time needs to be taken to carefully examine what the government is proposing here, and employers need to be given the opportunity to understand what it means for them. I know from talking to small businesses in my electorate, particularly those in the retail or hospitality space, that their focus right now is on ensuring they'll have a solid Christmas period that will help set them up for the quieter winter months. They're wanting to ensure that the demand is there—an increasing challenge, with people worried about the cost of living—while also wanting to meet that demand through the hiring of necessary staff. If I talk to any small business owner right now, what I hear about the most is the struggle to get staff. What they don't need on their plate is a new and onerous workplace relations bill that they don't have the time or resources to wade through. If they don't know what this is or what it means for them, this is concerning.

Just a few weeks ago the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group joined forces to caution against this legislation, warning that it will have significant ramifications that raise the risk of higher unemployment, increased strike action and damage to our economic security. They also warned the government to slow down and consult more widely and meaningfully. Jennifer Westacott, CEO of the Business Council of Australia, said the following:

We want wages to go up but that won't be achieved by creating more complexity, more strikes and higher unemployment.

Australia is in the midst of a global economic storm and there's no room for error if we want to secure our economic future, we have to tread carefully.

Innes Willox from AiG warned:

The high-risk proposals as they currently stand will create enormous difficulties for business and carry unintended consequences that will cost jobs and cause serious damage to our economy. We need a workplace relations system that is fair for all parties and delivers sustainable benefits to employees. We must avoid extreme changes that risk imposing damaging strikes and harm on the community and businesses. A responsible approach to changes to workplace laws is crucial. We urge the government to take a breath and avoid rushing to introduce such extreme changes to our workplace relations system.

Will Cassidy, the chief executive of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce—one of the oldest and most successful chambers in the country—has also expressed concern over the legislation, telling me, 'We weren't consulted or asked to give feedback on this, and it does feel like it needs wider consultation with the business community.' Robert Mallett, CEO of the Tasmanian Small Business Council, has also expressed his concern on the legislation and the process undertaken by the government, saying, 'We should have had a communitywide conversation to discuss and debate any changes to an amended IR bill—not an election—rather than some rushed attempt to make changes to be seen to be doing something.' He continues: 'There is need for more flexibility, not more complexity. Small-business people are already doing as much as they can to be flexible with their staff because they desperately need to hang onto them. Arrangements between staff and employers are already under fire because of black letter of the legislation, which doesn't account for the personalised nature of small businesses. This opportunity should be about modernising the awards rather than adding another mechanism for negotiating agreements.'

I note that Minister Burke said in question time today that extensive consultation had been done, and he listed all the organisations he had met with regard to the legislation. But I would say to the minister and to the government: consultation isn't just telling people what you're going to do; it's about listening to their response, and that's the part that you've so far failed to do. The role of government is to put in place frameworks that provide the lever by which business and employers can prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. What this bill proposes leads to is an unstable environment, creating more strikes and job losses. We all want to see Australians in secure work, should they seek it, and with higher wages, particularly at a time when we're seeing drastic increases in cost-of-living expenses.

I acknowledge that people in my electorate are some of the lowest paid in the country, and they deserve higher pay. Irrespective of those noble aims, what of the unintended consequences? Unlike many here, I can actually speak to what it's like to get by as a casual worker, and I don't mean in high school or while studying at university. I've had casual, contract and insecure employment my whole working life until recently, although I do joke that, while well-paid, being the member for Bass is arguably insecure. At one stage I was juggling casual work, single-motherhood and studying, so I acutely understand the pressures of needing to pay the bills without having solid financial security and certainty. The member for Lalor spoke very passionately about this and said, 'If you don't wave this legislation through, you don't care.' Of course we care, but this isn't the way to do it. I understand and support higher wages, but I've also lived through situations as an employee in the hospitality industry when my employer decided not to open because they couldn't cover the employee costs. It's no good getting a higher hourly rate if you get fewer hours. It's also no good receiving a higher wage only to lose your job if your employer folds. We have to get the balance right.

As I've listened to speeches by this government on the legislation, with much being made about a feminised workplace, I noted there are also many female business owners in my electorate. They're bright, energetic, hardworking employers, many with a majority of female employees. How is this legislation truly creating the necessary framework to help any business owner thrive and employ more staff—particularly in the current environment, where it's a struggle for employers to recruit and retain good employees? The multi-employer bargaining aspect of this bill will not make workplaces more productive or sustain higher wages. In fact, as the Productivity Commission points out, multi-employer bargaining would undermine the productivity benefits of enterprise bargaining by imposing one-size-fits-all agreements on groups of businesses, preventing more productive businesses from attracting more productive workers, and removing the incentive for productivity improvements.

Where's the support for small businesses who don't have the financial means to engage the necessary legal or HR support needed to engage in multi-employer bargaining?

And where's the power for employees if multi-employer agreements cannot be voted on by employees without the permission of bargaining representatives essentially giving unions a right of veto? Small business has often been described as the engine room of the Australian economy, so why is Labor doing everything they can to slow that engine down and cause irretrievable damage at such an uncertain time in the economy?

There are some good aspects of the bill. Who doesn't want to end the gender pay gap? Of course we should be looking to do this, but it needs to be done thoughtfully. On the whole there are serious adverse consequences, as raised not only by our side of the parliament but by the entire crossbench, with all holding concerns over the rush to push this through. I would encourage the government to consider trying to advance the non-contentious parts of the bill and spend some more time consulting with the business community across Australia, including in my electorate of Bass.

(Quorum formed)

See this speech in context