Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Frequently, in any business environment, being able to scale up and down as required can literally make or break your business, and, for this, flexibility is key. Why then make employment of temps, casuals and independent contractors harder across the board, especially if the real issue is something that largely is found in specific industries? Ultimately, there is little evidence in North Sydney of dissatisfaction with the employee-employer relationship. Rather, most people indicated to me that they were happy with the relationship they had with their employer and they appreciated their employer's willingness to offer them reliable, consistent hours on a casual basis so they could juggle personal responsibilities. Some acknowledged the potential for abuse of the labour hire model within some industries, but the resounding, consistent feedback was: 'Why not then simply tackle those industries, rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all solution is the answer?'

Small to medium sized businesses in North Sydney who work with labour hire have been quick to provide me with specific feedback, including the following: 'My business would be worse off.' Another said: 'I would close my business.' Another again said: 'It is not fair for other experienced and loyal workers that labour hire gets the same pay as them.' And another again said: 'Labor hire workers are surge workforce for busy times; they are not as skilled or as invested in my business. They should not earn what my valued permanent employees earn.' And a final one I'll quote said: 'My full-time employees are well looked after and invested in my business, as I am in them. To pay a labour hire person the same as these employees is ridiculous.'

The third point of concern in my community is the observation that the new definition of 'casual employee' creates fear where there was previously confidence, and will result in less reliable and predictable casual employment. In North Sydney, casual workers make up 45 per cent of the workforce in small to medium businesses. Statistically, we know that one in three of them will have regular and predictable working arrangements, because that's what they want. They value casual loading, but they want or need predictability in their hours. It is important that we acknowledge: these employers are not exploiting these individuals. The issue with the new definition of casual employment is that both employers and employees are now concerned that, to maintain their classification of 'casual', they're going to have to forgo predictability.

While the government argues the purpose of this change is to improve job security by replacing the existing definition with a fair and objective definition, when I asked small to medium sized enterprises what effect they felt this new definition would have on their businesses, I received the following responses: 'I would shut down;' and: 'I wouldn't hire casuals any more. It's all about being flexible and responsive to the needs of my customers, especially in child care;' and: 'I really don't see why the government is making it less flexible for employees and businesses to operate;' and finally: 'This change would effectively reduce my casuals' wages by 38 per cent, so I can't see what is in it for them and I can't see them seeking it. I am concerned, however, that a union may choose to get involved and try and create some sort of test case which would ultimately sweep them up, and I don't think that's in anyone's interests, except maybe the union's.'

The fourth concern that my community has is that the risk of getting it wrong is simply not worth it. Under this proposed legislation, the penalty for misrepresenting an employment opportunity as casual is sizeable and may be a significant cause of stress for those employers who are unable to access sophisticated human resource professionals. At a time when we need to focus on boosting productivity, we're instead debating a piece of legislation that threatens to decrease the flexibility in the workplace and harm Australians' capacity to earn additional income in a way that works for them. Add to this an overly complicated award system and the recent employment white paper, and many in my community just don't understand why the government is pursuing legislation they believe will disincentivise employers to hire more staff.

As a fifth point of concern, my community is worried that the right to work as an independent contractor must be protected. The key concern I have heard, time and again, is that this legislation effectively takes this form of service delivery and moves it from contract law into employment law. And the impact of this switch should not be underestimated. Almost 50 per cent of the small to medium sized businesses in North Sydney report they routinely use the services of independent contractors to complete work for them. According to Self Employed Australia, however, the passing of this bill would mean all self-employed independent contractors in Australia who seek to operate through a digital platform would be captured by this legislation and thus would need to be treated as employees, removing their right to be self-employed and to engage freely in commercial transactions through digital platforms.

The sixth and final concern in my community is that any new protections must ultimately support an innovative work environment. As stated before, my community generally supports the Fair Work Commission being given the power to set minimum standards. And we agree: gig workers deserve greater protection. But these protections must be offered in a way that firstly ensures their own employment needs are met in terms of the flexibility, capacity to earn and ease of opting in and out of platforms they wish for, whilst also ensuring we do not cause business innovation to grind to a halt, based on the belief that the employment terms of the 20th century are what 21st century workers want.

In closing, on behalf of the people of north Sydney, I say that, while some of the proposed reforms in this legislation are welcome, we fear the potential good work will, ultimately, be derailed by the fact it is buried in an omnibus of industrial reform which is simply too much too soon. Indeed, a recent Council of Small Business Organisations Australia survey found that 90 per cent of small businesses will be less likely to employ people if this current bill is passed. These are our newsagents, our barbers and hairdressers, our retailers, our post offices, live musicians, community pharmacists, grocers and direct sellers. To be frank, in this context, this bill has become the No. 1 risk to their business due to the uncertainty they now feel in the lead-up to Christmas.

Ultimately, I am committed to working with this government for the betterment of my community. As such I will work overtime to help businesses across my electorate navigate whatever is eventually passed in this place. But I ask the government to note that, while it claims this legislation will have limited impact and strikes a reasonable and balanced middle ground, I don't believe that claim has withstood scrutiny. I call on the government to amend this legislation. Pass those pieces of it that are uncontroversial, but then move forward in renegotiating legislative terms that offer the protections we all agree employees are entitled to, without stymieing innovation and unnecessarily burdening Australian businesses.

See this speech in context