Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 before the Senate today proudly. As the daughter of a small family owned enterprise, I tell you that, if we had had the Fair Work Act then, my dad wouldn't actually have got the milk run done because he didn't pay very well. But what I didn't make up in dollars, I got in Big Ms at the time. It was the 1980s! But, family owned enterprises teach you a whole lot of things about life and the importance of contributing and the importance of hard work.

I also rise to speak vehemently against this bill as the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. This bill will have profound impact on the construction industry, which underpins our infrastructure build across the country; on the transport industry, on our roads, our ports, our airports; and, indeed, on regional development. We know that the majority of country towns and regional capitals are built and sustained by small- to medium-sized enterprises. They're the enterprises that the Labor Party and union mates are after. They've already got a big hold in the big businesses. Where they lack a hold and a sway is in those small family-owned enterprises right across the country. The target of these changes are 2.6 million small businesses across this country.

We've heard senators right across my side of the chamber talk about the rush to get this done and the mistakes that the Labor Party has made on the way to getting that done—150 amendments to their own legislation. They had the drafting pen. They had all the bureaucrats. They had all the legal experts in the department to get it right but they didn't. One hundred and fifty amendments to their own bill, before it gets to the Senate, and a few odd, minor changes by Senator Pocock and here we are—very, very chaotic.

Why are they in such a rush, Senator Cadell? Why? Do you know what I think it is? I think you've got to pay the ferryman sometimes. This is more about making sure Sally McManus and the ACTU have a very, very merry Christmas, thank you very much—as if an election of an Albanese government wasn't enough for them in to 2022. It's to ensure that Sally McManus can go on an extended Christmas holiday with a big smile on her face knowing she has secured changes—through this Labor government reaching into family-owned and run enterprises right across the country—that will wreak havoc on our productivity, that won't raise wages in the way that has been talked about here today. It is not a bill that you had a mandate for. In fact, during the election campaign the Treasurer explicitly ruled out measures that are covered in this bill, and yet here we are, a mere six months later, seeking to legislate the most draconian wind back of industrial relations in this country in 40 years.

The Prime Minister waltzes around. 'I'm the new Hawke.' He has got the voice happening. He's the new Keating. He's nowhere near the reforming nature that the Hawke and Keating government put our economy on for the future. This will be a drag on our economic productivity. It's not just me saying it; it's all the small to medium enterprises, and industry, that are saying it. It is not a policy that has been endorsed by the Australian people.

When we look at what industry has been saying about the impact of this bill they've been absolutely scathing. 'It will be back to the future for our Australian ports.' Who wants to go back to where farmers and small business people are having punch-ups with unions at ports? That is actually what used to happen in this country, because of the severe and radical industrial reaction from unions. This is exactly where this bill will be taking us back to.

The government, in its arrogance, has no interest in allowing the proper time for examination of the implications of these proposed reforms. Their arrogance is compounded by the raft of amendments and the latest changes negotiated on the fly.

The bill will have a significant impact on my portfolio area. It's Master Builders Australia's submission that has said:

… the bill will see a return to industry-wide pattern deals and entrench sector-wide strike action that will be damaging to workplaces and the broader Australian economy.

You don't believe them. We've heard a lot of talk about the feminised workforces and low-paid workers. In the construction industry that's an area of the Australian economy where there have been wage rises going forward. You cannot find a chippie for love nor money. And rightfully when something's in short supply the cost of it goes up. In the construction industry and in the transport industry that flat rate of wage has not actually been occurring.

Industries, such as the construction industry, don't operate in a silo. It is part of an intricate supply chain. Think of concrete. If it doesn't get there on time you delay the entire trajectory of that project—whether it's your backyard patio, or whether it is a major construction project in a capital city that will have benefits to the broader community and productivity across the economy. They aren't carved out like the construction industry is.

In summary: the Master Builders have said that this bill removes the 'enterprise' from enterprise bargaining, removes 'agreement' from enterprise agreements and gives unions more say than workers. And that has to be a bad thing! Unions and the Labor Party say they're about workers, so why don't the working people vote for you? The National Party actually represents those in this country who are on the lowest median income levels. And do you know what? You are so non-competitive in our seats because the workers across Australia know that you do not stand up for them. You are much more interested, as we saw in the latest Victorian election, about fighting for the high-income earners in capital cities against your Green fellows than in actually sticking up for the workers in this country, those who are on low incomes and in vulnerable workplaces.

When we look at what else the Master Builders talked about, they made the point that businesses don't work in an economic silo. There has been a whole song and dance around this place about, 'We've carved out the construction industry and the CFMMEU has nothing to do with it anymore.' That is not the case. If industries like shipping, transport, warehousing and logistics are adversely impacted by multi-employer bargaining then so too will the construction industry be. If there are port strikes or transport strikes, they will impact on the construction industry. It is false to come in here and say otherwise. Independent modelling from the Master Builders indicates that this policy to abolish the ABCC, which other senators have spoken about, will cost the economy $47½ billion by 2030. That's a hell of a lot of roads, hospitals and schools which could be built.

Why are we abolishing the ABCC? It's not because they weren't doing their job and not because they weren't standing up to the sexist CFMMEU, which so many of you are here as a result of—they use your skirts to hide behind. It's the ABCC which is actually calling out the sexism and the brutality that occurs on construction sites right across this country. And do you know what? You want it abolished! That's not because it's taking the CFMMEU to court, and winning cases—which is pretty tough to do—but because this is a deal you've done to get here. Those are the facts of the business that you are in on the other side.

Even the most impartial observer can see that these reforms are heavily weighted to the benefit of the government's union mates rather than to the transport portfolio that I represent. Just briefly, in the time left to me, I want to go to the impact both on the aviation and shipping industries, which have not been carved out. As an island nation, nothing gets into this country without coming from somewhere else and arriving, mainly, at our ports. So if our ports are not efficient or productive then we all pay, right across our economy. I have been quite concerned about the fact that ports are going to be subjected to significant impacts in the workplace. They're critical to our supply chain efforts, the fragility of which were exposed to during COVID. Some examples: Svitzer, for instance, does a lot of the tugboating in this country, and they were forced to lock the gates due to the failure of both sides to reach an agreement. On day one, there would have been only 20 days left of fuel supply for the nation. That's not just for cars and trucks but for airlines. So if you're wondering, 'What do ports have to do with me, I don't own a yacht?' you don't have to. Ports are important to you because if they shut down for a couple of days then we run out of fuel. In a country like Australia, as diversely populated as we are, that has health impacts, education impacts and severe economic impacts.

The Productivity Commission is doing an inquiry at the moment into maritime efficiency. In Svitzer's submission to the inquiry they say that of the four factors contributing to the productivity and efficiency of our ports, one is the industrial relations terms that they're currently having to operate under—things like: minimum crewing rules, which are not in any way linked to operational safety requirements; high penalty rates which don't correlate to the work actually done; restrictions on type of recruitments et cetera.

I know a lot of people have been talking about the low pay. On our side of this chamber, we absolutely want Australians to be well paid for their work. That is making sure that our businesses are as supported as they can be to be as competitive as they can be to make sure that they can pay their workers as much as they can. If our government hadn't taken the action we did during COVID there would be fewer businesses employing Australians in this country than there are right now because, guess what, unless you want to live in a communist country, governments don't employ everybody and governments don't set wages. That is not how it actually works.

One of the most concerning things, when I think about the efficiency and productivity of ports—which won't be addressed and will actually be exacerbated by this particular bill—were the Milo and Magnum clauses in the agreements with our tugboat companies. When you want to know why it costs you so much to get products from overseas, it might be because of the lazy $18,000 that this company had to spend to get a helicopter to drop off a crate of Magnums—not guns, let me assure the chamber, but ice creams—because the crew refused to unload a ship because there weren't enough chocolate ice creams in the fridge on the tugboat. These are not low-paid workers. These guys and gals earn in excess of $250,000 a year. They are more highly paid than some senators in this chamber. And they're refusing to unload a ship because they don't have enough ice creams on board. Do you know what the company has to do? They have to get a helicopter for 18 grand: 'Here you go boys and girls, can you unload the ship now please?'

That's our current industrial relations system, let alone what will happen under the draconian, union-friendly measures that this government is bringing before us, which will wreak havoc on our economy and will wreak havoc on our ports and in our aviation sector. Qantas has said they're going to close down their marginal routes.