Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, which incorporates quite a lot of well-meaning objectives into an omnibus bill. Next to me I have a fair bit of paperwork, and this was only presented to the House on Monday. We have here a bill that comes to 200 pages, which, if it passes this House and the Senate, will join the 1,200 pages of the Fair Work Act. We're looking at 1,400 pages in order to navigate your way through the employer-employee relationship. You don't have to be an industrial relations lawyer to know that creates enormous complexity and uncertainty. You don't have to be an industrial relations lawyer to know that businesses, particularly medium-sized and smaller business, don't have armies of lawyers and other staff to help them navigate all of the paperwork and forms that come with this. They'd be quite right to be upset by this, because, in all of the promises and speeches that were made in the lead-up to the last election, this sort of radical reform to our industrial relations was not on the cards. It wasn't put to the Australian people. We've heard lots of lectures from the other side about integrity and transparency, but when you look at these 200 pages and the mammoth, weighty explanatory memorandum that's supposed to help us resolve ambiguity—if that's helping us resolve ambiguity, as an explanatory memorandum, God help us! And God help businesses that are struggling to survive as it is, as many are.

We heard some really disturbing economic news today. I don't like to talk the economy down—we want it to succeed because it's about people's lives—but we heard from the Treasurer that annual GDP growth slowed from 2.3 to 2.1. The unfortunate reality of that number is that it's the aggregate GDP, not GDP per capita. It's a GDP propped up by population growth, mostly through migration. There's bipartisan agreement that we are a much stronger and better nation for our migration system, but we should never pretend that that is a substitute for productivity growth. When Australians are being hit with the consequences of high inflation and the cost-of-living crisis that comes with it, the interest rate rises hurt particular sectors of our society, not just our economy—people who are paying off their home, people who are trying to put food on the table and people who have had the worst circumstances possible, which is unemployment, illness or a family separation. They're the people we all see in our electorates queuing in food banks, struggling to stay within the system.

When we look to the laws that surround the employer-employee relationship, we should ask: 'What will this do for productivity? What will this do for employment?' The sad reality is that this proposal risks damaging both of those. This proposal will increase costs, increase complexity and add red tape to an already highly regulated system. Ours is one of the most regulated employer-employee systems in the world. For those who are contemplating starting a business, this is just another reason to say no, to not bother. That's the last thing we need in this economy. What the government should be focusing on is a way to increase productivity. When you increase productivity, you see wages grow; you see enhanced competition. Instead we've seen the government focus on restricting competition. We've all heard the speeches and questions put about the airline industry, but that's where the government's focus is.

No, not all of them. The member for Fraser has popped out, and I know, with his background and as Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, he's focused on productivity, dynamism and competition.

In the referendum that's coming up—you may ask, 'What's that got to do with this debate?' It has a little bit to do with this debate. We've heard lots of lectures from the Prime Minister, the ministers and the entire side of the chamber that if you listen you get better results, and who would argue with that?

Of course you get better results if you listen. That's our job in this place. But that doesn't really work if your listening involves selective hearing. You only listen to the things you want to hear. You don't listen to the things you don't want to hear.

The member for Parramatta, in two 90-second statements, in his passionate support for the Voice—and there's passionate disagreement in this place—singled out the support of the business community. He noted in two 90-second statements that it's great to see so many Australian businesses jumping on board to provide their support. He singled out BHP, Woolies and Optus. In fact, 13 out of the top 20 ASX companies have taken a position, and it's their right to do that. He then said: 'The opposition leader has no business trying to silence business.' He criticised the opposition leader, saying: 'He tells them they're virtue signalling. He tells them to stick to their knitting.'

In his second speech, the member for Parramatta said: 'If the coalition doesn't even understand business support then they have no business getting in the way.' If the member for Parramatta is very keen to listen to business and the groups that represent business, let's listen to them, not just on the things you want to hear but on all of things. We know that, in section 128 of our Constitution, the decision for amending the Constitution is with the people after it passes this place. It is not with corporate Australia but with the people. But the business of the employer-employee relationship actually is their core business. That's what they do day to day. So, if you're going to be selective about what you listen to from business, the economy and employer-employee relationships are pretty good ones. Let's hear what some of them had to say on these matters.

Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia said:

Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government’s radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that …

She added:

These changes will create confusion and extra costs for consumers, make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody.

Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this.

The government say they're serious about the cost of living, yet this is exactly what they're doing—something which risks increasing unemployment and reducing productivity at the very time when we need to be doing the opposite. Jennifer Westacott added:

We need a system that drives productivity, not stifles it, because that will stifle wages growth.

The case has not been made for this radical shake-up.

The member for Parramatta should reflect on those comments. He was quite critical of this side of the House for not listening to business. Is he going to listen to that view of business?

It doesn't stop there. We heard the Prime Minister say with glee that the Minerals Council of Australia were celebrating his position on the Voice, even though they're not mentioned in section 128 of the Constitution. But that's fine; that's their right. But they do have a particular interest in the employer-employee relationship and in growing this economy and growing productivity. Tanya Constable of the Minerals Council said of the Albanese government's latest changes:

The changes will inflict immense harm to the economy, the weight of which will fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable Australians who will pay more for groceries, housing, and energy.

The MCA calls on the Albanese Government to rip up this bill and head back to the drawing board.

There are many other stakeholders and representatives of business who have very strong views on this, and from the other side you may argue in reply: 'Well, of course they would say that. They're just acting in the national interest.' If you're to say that, then what's the self-interest that they're acting in when they support things you do like? You cannot have selective hearing about this.

One of the more troubling aspects of this is the expansion of union powers in workplaces. That gets to the heart of what we're really dealing with here and why this is in the form that it is and why it wasn't put to the Australian people before the election. I'll single out union delegate powers. Union delegates will have a new workplace right to protect them against employers that refuse to deal with them, that mislead them or that hinder or obstruct their right as a delegate. A mandatory term will be included in awards or enterprise agreements giving effect to primary and ancillary delegates' rights. The ancillary rights include reasonable access to communicate with members and potential members about matters of industrial concern, workplace fatalities and paid-time training, as well as delegates having paid time to create these functions. Again, there are parts of that which reasonable people could agree on, but that is not the effect of this, given the way that it's been drafted.

The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable unions to exercise right-of-entry powers without any notice, no notice, whenever it relates to wage underpayment. To gain immediate entry, the union only needs to assert to the Fair Work Commission that they suspect—and that's a very low threshold of proof, 'suspect'—a case of wage underpayment. No evidence is required to make their case. The National Farmers Federation have made a very important observation here in that they are concerned about the new rights of entry without notice and how they would affect farms. I don't represent a rural or regional electorate, but there are a couple of farms in the eastern side and what I know is that their business is their home. It's where they live. It's where they bring up their children, look after their parents. To have this sort of regime impose that right of entry on their home is extremely concerning. It should concern all of us. All of us should be concerned by that.

I said at the start there are some worthy objectives here, but, again, the devil is always in the detail. When we come in with an omnibus bill like this—this is the sort of bill that we see more in other democracies. The United States Congress is known for bundling a whole bunch of special interest issues into a bill that has a very catchy headline. Both sides will engage in that, in their bipartisan democracy, but it's not a healthy thing and it makes it hard to focus on the particular parts of it.

On the issue of wage theft, the coalition supports that wage theft should not occur. There was a proposal by the coalition, when it was last in government, to actually stamp this out. The coalition has zero tolerance for any exploitation of workers, including underpayment of wages and entitlements by any employer. And if the minister was serious about wage theft, then why did he lead the charge in 2021 to vote down the coalition's proposal to legislate a wage theft provision in the Fair Work Act? He came in here and in his speech he listed the things he thought we needed to defend. Well, he needs to defend that. He needs to come in here and defend his decision when he was on this side and refused to address that issue then. That would have helped people who were affected by wage theft in the meantime.

The government has overreached on wage theft in that it's not properly separating accidental theft—well, all theft, by its nature, should be intentional—as opposed to intentional theft. For those who've studied criminal law 101, the most important thing in the criminal justice system is the intent. That's the part that is punished. That is the part that we seek to disavow in the community so that others who are thinking of engaging in that activity will say, 'I won't do that because of the effects that will have on me,' so the general and specific deterrence that comes from that.

But if we're going to include accidental misallocation of wages—and that can happen. It's more likely to happen when you're dealing, as a business, with 1,400 pages of relevant legislation. It's more likely to happen. This proposal, in the way that it's put, makes wage theft more likely. Not less likely, more likely. We ask the government to refine that particular part, to focus on the intention of wage theft, because that's the effective part. When you punish intention, you actually have a deterrent effect in the community.

Another key part to this, in my time remaining, is when these laws come into effect. They're due to come into effect, if they pass, in November 2024. What's happening there? Is this so urgent that these loopholes have to be fixed now? Or does the minister and the government know that the actual implementation of these will create real harm in our economy and in our society, and they want to push that off until after the next election? They will push it off, so putting political interests before the economy, putting political interests before growing productivity and reducing the cost of living.

See this speech in context