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

SPENDER () (): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (20) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 21), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 1, item 463, page 132 (line 16), omit paragraph 65B(4)(a), substitute:

(a) the FWC must deal with the dispute and, in the first instance, must deal with the dispute by conciliation; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 463, page 132 (lines 19 to 22), omit the note, substitute:

Note: See also subsection 595(2) for the FWC's power to deal with disputes.

(4) Schedule 1, Part 15, page 162 (lines 1 to 27), omit the Part.

(5) Schedule 1, item 538, page 173 (after line 9), after the definition of intractable bargaining workplace determination, insert:

intractable dispute: see subsection 234(3).

(6) Schedule 1, item 543, page 174 (line 6), after "agreement", insert "if there is an intractable dispute about the agreement".

(7) Schedule 1, item 543, page 174 (after line 14), at the end of section 234, add:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the regulations must prescribe what constitutes an intractable dispute.

(4) Before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of subsection (3), the Minister must be satisfied that an appropriate level of consultation has been undertaken with relevant employer and employee groups.

(8) Schedule 1, item 543, page 174 (after line 27), after paragraph 235(2)(a), insert:

(aa) before the FWC dealt with the dispute about the agreement under section 240, the position of each bargaining representative for the agreement was fair and reasonable; and

(ab) the bargaining representatives for the agreement have met the good faith bargaining requirements; and

(9) Schedule 1, item 597, page 194 (line 29), at the end of paragraph 216BA(3)(b), add "or that passed its nominal expiry date less than 12 months before the application for the variation under section 216B was made".

(10) Schedule 1, item 629, page 203 (lines 5 to 27), omit section 216DB.

(11) Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (line 5), omit "or 216DB".

(12) Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (line 26), omit "section 216DD; and", substitute "section 216DD.".

(13) Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (line 27) to page 205 (line 2), omit paragraph 216DC(1)(e).

(14) Schedule 1, item 629, page 205 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 216DC(3).

(15) Schedule 1, item 629, page 205 (lines 17 to 22), omit subsection 216DC(4), substitute:

(4) Despite subsection (1), the FWC must not approve the variation if the employer is excluded for the purposes of the agreement by an order under section 178C.

(16) Schedule 1, item 629, page 206 (line 26), omit "or 216DB".

(17) Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 27), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs at least 100 full-time equivalent employees".

(18) Schedule 1, item 639, page 211 (line 32), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs at least 100 full-time equivalent employees".

(19) Schedule 1, item 660, page 240 (after line 24), at the end of Part 13, add:

Division 20 — Review of operation of amendments

85 Review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act to be conducted by an independent expert as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the amending Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) The person who conducts the review must give the Minister a written report of the review no later than the end of the period of 15 months starting on the day the amending Act receives the Royal Assent.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister

(20) Schedule 1, item 661, page 241 (line 20), omit "paragraphs 216D(1)(b) and 216DB(1)(b)", substitute "paragraph 216D(1)(b)".

These amendments seek to make the bill better. I do not seek to undermine the government's stated intentions at all. My amendments will not interfere with wage rises for low-wage workers, affect gender equality, or impose unnecessary barriers to making agreements These are laudable aims and I support them 100 per cent. My amendments, however, will make this bill more workable for businesses, particularly small businesses, who have had an incredibly tough time in recent years. It will make it more workable for workers, who desperately need a pay rise to cope with the rising cost of living.

Many of the concerns of this bill can be undone with one simple amendment: let businesses consent to multi-party bargains in the single interest stream. No business group in the country supports compulsory engagement in multi-party bargaining. No business group in the country supports this, not even COSBOA, which was the first business group to consider the value of multi-party bargaining—never under any circumstances did they say this should this be compulsory for business. When we are heading into tumultuous economic times, it is absolutely reckless to ignore the legitimate concerns of business. It is reckless to ignore the Productivity Commission, who in their report said:

any changes to the [Fair Work] Act to increase the use of multi-employer and industry/sector wide bargaining are likely to have uncertain implications for productivity … and should be undertaken with caution and be subjected to detailed, rigorous and transparent analysis.

Productivity is absolutely vital for wage growth, and we should listen to the Productivity Commission when considering this.

Will a small grocery store be forced into an agreement that suits Coles and Woolworths? We don't know. Will these changes actually increase wages when agreements are made that may stop a business from changing their business model to meet the needs of their time? We just don't know. The truth is, we do not know the full implications of this legislation, and businesses in my electorate don't even realise that they're going to be subject to it. If the government will not take the time to properly consult on this bill, and properly work with business to come up with solutions that will work for business and workers to drive productivity and wage growth, then we need to make this change.

Many have also spoken about the importance of small business in this country, and many people in this House have businesses in their electorates that would say 15 staff does not make you a medium business. These businesses should not be treated as if they were. I'm seeking an amendment that would raise the threshold of businesses to 100 full-time equivalent staff. Businesses below this level don't have HR teams, and they're fundamentally different to big businesses.

I acknowledge that the government has shifted on a grace period for six months, but that is not long enough for business. We should extend that period to 12 months and a more realistic time frame for negotiations to be concluded. I support the government's desire to increase workplace flexibility. However, I believe that we should always move to conciliation before we go to arbitration, and so I seek that we require conciliation before subjecting parties to arbitration and the very significant cost that it entails. In intractable disputes, my amendments would help prevent gaming or other mischief. They simply require the minister to define 'intractable', require the parties to engage in good faith, and require Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that the position of each party is fair and reasonable before arbitration commences.

Finally—and I think this is crucial—my amendments require an independent review of the bill after 12 months. Sally McManus made the point to me the other day that parliament tends to ignore industrial relations once a significant reform has been made, and so we miss the opportunity to refine legislation after commencement. That is a mistake, but one that we can rectify by ensuring a review of these changes is taken in due course.

The government is determined to pass this bill in a month. It is a huge risk. It is a national experiment in changing workplace relations at a time when our economy is fragile. Wage growth is too low and has been too low for too long. I want to see higher wages, but I don't want to see small business closing or unemployment rising, and I really don't want to see a wage-price spiral where higher wages are eaten up by rolling economywide price hikes. That would be the worst possible outcome. The government should do the responsible thing and limit the scope of the experiment. Order. We should not risk that today.

See this speech in context