Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet says:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.

Of course, that's William Shakespeare using those lines in his play to convey that the naming of things is completely irrelevant. So it is with respect to the bill presently before the House, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment—and here comes the Shakespearean contribution—(Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. If it were just as easy as that! I've got some alternatives which I was just penning down when the member for Corangamite was eulogising the involvement of the union movement, which I'll get to at some point during this contribution. But here's an alternative: 'Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Complexity, Cost and Confusion) Bill 2023' or perhaps, more saliently, (Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Doing the Unions' Bidding) Bill 2023'. You see, there's nothing in a name, and the people of Australia ought not to be hoodwinked by what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations would insert into the brackets. So it is that employer groups around this nation have come together and condemned and called out this effort, because they get that it's not about what's in the brackets; it's about what's in the bill.

Given that I am following on from the member for Corangamite, who made such glowing references to the union movement, let me say that it would be right for Australians to think, at a time when we've got almost record levels of employment, when employers are desperate to hold onto employees, 'Why are we looking to undertake these reforms?' I'm sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, as you travel around your electorate and speak to employers, you hear the same as me. Employers tell me, 'The challenge is finding people to fill roles.' At a time when the employment market is so tight, why are we looking to undertake these reforms?

The answer is a simple one. It's time to pay the piper, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker. The piper is, of course, the union movement, who, for nine years, stood steadfast alongside the Australian Labor Party, providing gargantuan contributions to their campaign funds. Of course, these contributions don't come without strings. What we're seeing writ large in the parliament, both in tranche 1 and tranche 2, which is supposedly less controversial—let's all hold our collective breath for tranche 3, which I think has been described as the 'controversial' contribution to the reform agenda—is effectively the Australian Labor Party, through its minister, paying the piper and making good on that compact between the Australian Labor Party and its union bosses. This is about expanding union memberships, which are in decline across the country. It's about effectively acquiescing to a long list of union demands, which are all about the union agenda, which is to grow union memberships, union power and union control of the economy, in the same way that those very same unions exert immeasurable control over those opposite and their agenda.

I want to talk about a couple of specifics, and one in particular. I'm particularly concerned about the impact that this bill will have on group training organisations. In my electorate, many of the apprentices that are placed into host businesses aren't employed by those businesses; they're employed by group training enterprises. I had the great pleasure of visiting one of the best of such employers just last Friday. MTASA, Motor Trade Association South Australia, are, I expect, the largest single employer of apprentices in the automotive vehicle and mechanical space in South Australia. They use their economies of scale to train people to exceptional standards, and they place those apprentices and trainees in host businesses. I'm very concerned about what these changes will do to that model, because, of course, that looks a lot like a labour hire arrangement, but it's not labour hire in its traditional sense. So I'm very concerned about what impact that will have on the ability of that organisation to provide training to these individuals at that very high level.

But I'm equally concerned about what it says around flexibility. I said earlier that we're in a phase of the Australian economy where employees are in the strongest bargaining position they've been in probably my lifetime. That strong bargaining position has meant that individual arrangements can be entered into that speak to flexibility, remuneration and other things. But, effectively, by this approach we are going to disincentivise employers from taking up those flexible arrangements. We're saying to a young tradie that theirs is a life effectively of servitude to a large employer and they will not be able to effectively, entrepreneurially, develop their business and skills via a subcontractor model. There's nothing wrong with the subcontractor model. In fact, many people enjoy the flexibility that it offers, allowing them to work hours of their choosing on the basis of their own negotiated arrangements.

We should be looking to create more flexibility in the industrial relations system in this country, not less, but, of course, that's not a model that those opposite prefer. Those opposite prefer a very command and control style arrangement, where unions are at the heart of not only the industrial relations system in this country but also every small business, whether it's the tearoom, the car park or the factory floor. I visit many employers in my electorate, very few of whom have high levels of union membership. But, equally, I speak to their employees, and they couldn't be happier with the individual arrangements they're entered into, the flexibility et cetera.

The other impact this bill is going to have on the small-business sector in particular—small- and medium-scale enterprises—is that it's going to operate as a disincentive. Millions of Australians take the plunge, and I remember doing it myself, when I went from someone who was employed in a business, taking home a wage every fortnight, to someone who established their own business. I remember taking that plunge, signing the lease, sitting behind the desk from IKEA that I'd spent the weekend putting together and thinking to myself, 'Goodness this better work, because I've mortgaged my house to do it.' It's a real threshold question, and not one that's easily taken. I've got to make an admission: I had the support of my family in making that decision, and not every Australian has that. I remember my parents encouraging me to make that step and saying to me, 'Son, if it goes bad, we're there for you.'

Not every Australian has that safety net. But what those opposite are doing via this bill is raising that threshold even higher so that a young tradesman who has worked in that trade, has become a young professional, knows that they've got the business skill to operate their own business and can see a path forward now has to think seriously about how they would go about that, because that transition from employee to business owner can't go via the subcontractor model, which is, with respect, a soft-landing place for people, particularly in the building trades—going from working for a builder to running your own private enterprise. There is that space in the middle where you can continue to offer your services to your principal client, if you like, but have the ability to do additional work in that space. This is going to take that ability away from a young tradesman, and I think that is a very difficult thing to contemplate.

There is also the other concern that I have, and in the time I have remaining to speak I want to address this. I can't for the life of me understand why those opposite effectively make decision after decision after decision, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, that will do nothing but drive up the cost of living. Of course, members of the opposition, very many of whom who were here during the period of the last government, dealt with a crisis of their own. The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis like none that I have faced while I have been in this place, and I've been privileged to be here for a little over 10 years. But we faced up to that crisis. We had a plan and we executed it. We didn't get everything right, but I'm not sure we made decision after decision after decision to make that crisis worse. We did our level best to assist Australians to maintain their lives—and save their lives—and livelihoods.

Yet those opposite, facing their crisis—because every government faces challenges—a cost-of-living crisis, come in here day after day as if the crisis is not taking place. It would be as if in our situation we had denied the existence of COVID-19. Of course we didn't do that. We faced up to it and sought to do our best in light of it. But we have members of the now government coming into this place, question time after question time, effectively telling Australians they've never had it better, when all the while every decision they are taking is putting greater pressure on cost-of-living challenges.

Whether it's the bill we will debate next, which is about ripping irrigation water out of irrigation communities, only to put up the price of fresh food in this country—and, for those that are listening in from home, returning 450 gigs to the Murray-Darling Basin is the equivalent of ripping out 35 million orange trees—or whether it is energy, fresh fruit or wages, which impact every single aspect of our lives, we're seeing prices going up.

It is time for those opposite to face up to their challenge. It's a cost-of-living crisis in this country. Australians don't want you talking about the Voice. They want you focused on their challenges. They don't want these reforms. There's plenty in a name, but nothing in this bill's name. It's not about closing loopholes; it's about driving up the cost of living.

See this speech in context