Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President Sterle, I note how keen you were to take the chair for my speech in continuation tonight! You wore one of your favourite ties for the occasion!

I would like to talk about some of the specific provisions in this bill and my concern about the drafting of the bill. Bear in mind that this legislation is going to impact small and medium-sized businesses across this country, many of whom do not have a dedicated human resources function or an in-house legal function to give them advice. We've heard during the debate over the last few weeks that the government's estimate of consultant or adviser fees of $175 an hour, as provided in the regulation impact statement, is simply underdone, undercooked—not accurate.

The reality is that small and medium-sized businesses who want to get legal advice or industrial relations advocacy advice in relation to these measures which they are going to have to comply with are looking at a cost—just for a junior adviser or consultant—in the region of $350 an hour, at least twice as much as the government has estimated in its regulatory impact statement. That is deeply concerning. If you are going to change the law and put a cost imposition on small and medium-sized businesses, work out what the cost is appropriately. As has been said by my friend Senator Brockman in the course of this debate—I did exactly the same as Senator Brockman. I rang a small business that provides industrial advocacy services in my home state, in Brisbane, and I was told that, for a junior, it was $350 an hour and, for someone more senior, between $400 and $500 an hour. Yet we have a regulatory impact statement which refers to an estimate of $175 an hour. That is very disappointing.

I want to turn to some of the drafting of the bill. A key clause is in relation to what constitutes a common interest, because it's under this definition that small and medium-sized enterprises may be dragged into an industrial relations dispute. This is what the definition says:

For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), examples of common interests—

that's the key definition, common interests—

that employers may have include the following:

(a) a geographical location;

(b) the nature of the enterprises to which the agreement will relate, and the terms and conditions of employment in those enterprises;

(c) being substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

It's up to the Fair Work Commission to decide, on the basis of those criteria in the bill, whether or not there is a common interest. We then turn to the explanatory memorandum. For those listening to the debate, the explanatory memorandum is meant to explain what the provisions in the bill actually mean. This is what it tells us:

Subsection 243(2) would provide examples of common interests that employers may have. This includes the geographical location of the employers, the nature of the enterprises to which the agreement will relate, and the terms and conditions of employment …

So the explanatory memorandum simply restates what's actually in the bill. It doesn't explain anything. It just restates what's in the bill.

So what is one to make of the phrase 'a geographical location'? Every business in this country is at a geographical location. Putting aside the fact that a location needs to be geographical—I'm not sure what else it can be—what does that mean? Are we talking about businesses which are adjacent to each other or in close proximity within a shopping centre, for example? Are we talking about a suburb? Are we talking about a region? For example, is Mount Isa considered a geographical location for the purposes of this test, or would it be north-west Queensland, regional Queensland or the state of Queensland? What is the actual geographical location we're talking about that triggers this test? There is absolutely no guidance whatsoever to the Fair Work Commission as to what this means in practice.

Then we turn to the second link, the nature of the enterprises. Again, as is the case with a geographical location, the explanatory memorandum just regurgitates what's in the bill. It doesn't actually give a definition as to what 'nature of the enterprises' means—absolutely no guidance whatsoever. So, paragraph (a), a geographical location: well, I can tell you, every single business in this country is located at a geographical location. So where does that lead us?

Then the second part, the 'nature of the enterprises'—again, no explanation as to what that means. Then you go to the regulatory impact statement—the famous regulatory impact statement that undercooks the cost of consultants that small and medium-size businesses are going to have to engage by at least 50 per cent—to see what this means. I go to the case study, which is contained on page 53 of the regulatory impact statement. This is how they think this should work in practice:

10 medium-sized fish and chip shops with seafood processing plants in Queensland have decided or been compelled to bargain together in the single interest stream.

I'm going to repeat that: '10 medium-sized fish and chip shops with seafood processing plants'—I'm assuming that they're not saying that each of the 10 medium-sized fish and chip shops has its own seafood processing plant. I'm assuming they're not intending to imply that. I'm assuming they're intending to imply that each of these 10 fish and chip shops sources its seafood from an external supplier. So, our 10 medium-sized fish and chip shops with seafood processing plants in Queensland 'have decided or been compelled'—at least the regulatory impact statement is honest in that regard—'to bargain together in the single interest stream'.

For the life of me, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle—and you are extremely well experienced in industrial relations matters—I cannot see any similarity whatsoever with respect to industrial relations issues between a medium-sized fish and chip shop that is a retail shop, that is outward facing—it presumably would be more busy during hours when people are going to get their fish and chips—and a seafood processing plant, which is processing seafood that has been caught. Where is the similarity? How in goodness's name would our 10 proprietors of the medium-sized fish and chip shop sit down with the general managers or owners of the seafood processing plant and with the unions and come up with any coherent enterprise agreement? How?

This is madness. And this is the case study in the regulatory impact statement—10 medium-sized fish and chip shops getting together with the seafood processing factory. It's hard to fathom. Then we go through the case study and they say it's fantastic:

In their current arrangements they must enforce 4 awards to run their business, the Seafood Processing Award, the Retail Award, the Fast Food Award and the Restaurant Award. This has led to increased compliance costs for business.

But once they go through the single-interest stream of bargaining they're going to have one enterprise agreement. Seriously? How do you sit down and negotiate a meaningful enterprise agreement to cover a retail-facing fish and chip shop and a seafood processing plant? And this is the example we're given in the regulatory impact statement. It's absolutely embarrassing.

So, we look at that example, and then we go back to the bill and look at the general comment around the nature of the enterprise. One is left with the unavoidable conclusion that this clause is just so vague and so general that it could be found to apply to anyone and anything, as long as they're in some sort of geographical proximity. I don't want to criticise the people who drafted the regulatory impact statement. I'm sure they've done their best under very difficult circumstances. This is the sort of example they're giving us: a seafood processing plant—a factory, to put it another way—entering into an enterprise agreement which would cover retail workers in a fish and chip shop. Seriously? I've never heard such a thing. I'd love to know if there is any example of that being done anywhere.

There's a good reason why there are different awards that apply to restaurants, retail, fast food and seafood processing plants. The reason why you have different awards is the context, the facts and circumstances with respect to the place of work, occupational health and safety standards, presumably rosters and all sorts of issues are so materially different between those businesses. It is impossible to fathom how those sorts of medium and small businesses would come together and negotiate a meaningful enterprise agreement, but this is the case study that the government holds up. It is clear to me that insufficient work and time have been put into the preparation of this legislation, and I fear the consequences for our economy.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be honest, I've been consistent in wanting the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 to be debated next year. It's not a surprise. I've said I have issues with it—mostly around the multi-employer bargaining, because we just don't know how this will impact small and medium businesses. We haven't had time to complete our due diligence and consult, listen and understand the real-world impacts. It's all well here in Canberra to debate and make changes, but even with the changes, we don't know how it will actually work.

How are we supposed to get across all of this? We've been getting amendment after amendment after amendment—we got some just a few hours ago. I'm not convinced anyone can really predict how the changes in this bill will impact productivity and result in pay rises. I tell you one thing, though: no-one is getting a pay rise before Christmas. Let's make sure that's quite clear. At the beginning of the week, this bill was still subject to further Senate inquiry because we're all trying to get across the details. This bill is 250 pages long. The bill was only introduced on 27 October 2022, and just a month later it's being rammed through the Senate.

Yes, I get the Labor Party is dead keen to get wages moving after wage stagnation for close to a decade. Aussies know and understand and voted on reducing the wage gap, stopping wage theft and getting better wages. They didn't vote at the election to support single-interest multi-employer bargaining. It's a surprise. Just how it will bite in the real world is terribly unclear. Businesses are concerned it may lead to more strikes, but, of course, we don't know, and Labor can't guarantee that either. What is a single interest? Location, the rules of the industry or the type of work? The fact we still need to ask this question shows how rushed this process has been.

The amendments agreed between Senator Pocock and Labor still don't solve the issue; they just further exemptions to who is caught. However, here we are at the eleventh hour. The deal was done, apparently, on Saturday night, and we still don't have the amendments. Where are the amendments? If you are a small business of 15 to 20 employees, you're not caught. For businesses with fewer than 50 employees, the union has to justify why that business should be included in multi-employer bargaining—I'm not feeling comfortable—provided you are reasonably comparable. I mean, seriously. What does that mean? What does 'comparable' mean? No wonder your amendments are taking so long.

These last-minute changes haven't allowed any of us the time needed to raise awareness with business and work out how this amended bill will impact them. It is unclear how it will address the wage crisis and even how quickly pay rises—if they happen—will reach the pockets of hardworking Aussies. The costs of living continue to increase. It seems everything gets more expensive every day. Since May 2022, there have been seven interest rate rises in a row. This means the average home loan of $500,000 has now gone up by $760 a month. You'll get a new interest rate just before Christmas. That's what you can expect. It's all well and good for Mr Lowe, the RBA Governor, to apologise to Aussie homeowners after he said interest rates were unlikely to rise before 2024. God help all our children out there, who did the right thing, thinking they were investing in their first house, with maintaining and holding it if interest rates keep going up. I see a massive crisis coming on their. A fat lot of good that's going to do to help all those struggling with meeting their mortgage repayments. It's not just homeowners who are feeling it. Renters also are having to tighten their belts, because if you raise interest rates it means higher mortgages, and common sense says it means higher rents.

To add to that, Mr Lowe then said that higher wages will mean higher inflation. That means higher gas, petrol and food prices. The high gas prices are a result of bad Liberal government policy and its absolute failure to give Australians fair access to a product they already own. There's no way that Australians should be paying the sky-high gas prices we are, and it's all because the Liberal government and Labor failed to protect the Australian market, letting greedy companies export most of our gas so they could fill their pockets with huge profits and then profit even more by making Australians pay inflated spot-market prices for their own gas. I tell you, this country is in a world of hurt, and it's only just the beginning.

Even if wages do rise, pay cheques won't increase until next year, and no-one can say by how much. Even after this bill passes, wages are unlikely to increase enough to cover all these hikes in the cost of living so that Aussies are really better off and are getting ahead. I support higher wages. Most people in Australia do. Why wouldn't they? But they have to be paid for by business, so they matter here as well. You can't help if your shop is shut and no-one is getting a wage at all. They're really worried about this bill as well, and so they should be. I want to get wages moving for nurses, aged-care workers and childcare workers. The government could have done that the day they got into power. That's what they should have been hitting. That's what they should have been doing. They could do it today, but they didn't and they won't.

The government are being sneaky and dishonest. They said they needed this bill to do that, but they didn't. They held back the wages of low-paid workers, and they did it on purpose. They're doing a whole lot of things with this bill that they haven't properly explained to us, and that's why I've circulated amendments to take those parts out. The government can bring these parts of the bill back next year, once we have had time to consider the impacts properly. I'm not going to wear the responsibility of making mistakes with this one. The government of the day can do that. God help you if, this time next year, people are in absolute crisis, they're not getting their pay rises and there are union strikes all over the country, because I say this to you: that will leave you about a year and a half out from an election, and I don't see that cleaning up very quickly.

I don't believe you've got this right. I believe there is a lot of union power in this. It's all about political donations, making sure they keep feeding the piggy bank of the union party—or, should I say, the Labor Party. That is where we're at. I look forward to standing here next year, holding this Senate back day after day and absolutely pummelling you people over there about the destruction that you have done to this country. That is where we are heading. By the way, we still have amendments we have not seen. There are still more to come. We are rushing through this. It's going to have a huge impact on this country. I can tell you now, the way we're all looking at it, most people out there that have some common sense know exactly where we're going. We're heading down the gurgler. You've got problems here. The first one is gas and energy prices. You've got home loans going through the roof, and our younger kids who thought they were doing the right thing are going to go under. That's where we're at. If you think an extra seven or eight bucks a week, if you get that far by next year, is going to assist, you are living in denial—you're living on another planet.

The way that you have rushed this through just blows me away. I thought you were going to be a different government to the last one. Seriously, we're six months in and, I tell you, we're nearly back to the good old days of the last nine years. Good luck to you. I look forward to standing up here this time next year and watching you on the government side all sit there as you try to explain yourselves, because that is what is going to happen.

Anyway, I look forward to the committee stage. I have quite a lot of questions because, once again, we had limited time to ask them before. I look forward to what the government of the day is going to say to the questions that never got answered because we didn't have enough time to get them answered. Four days and two hours for an inquiry—seriously! That's what we got on this bill. I cannot believe that you haven't learned from the past what happens when you rush through bills; we watched it for nine years. This is where we're sitting today, and you're following exactly the same example. Seriously! You've actually learned nothing. If you can't see the future of where this is all going—and anybody with common sense can see where we're going to be next year—then you seriously should not be the government.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. This bill should be called the 'Fair work legislation amendment (union workplace takeover) bill', because that's exactly what this is. One of the most extreme elements of the bill gives unions the right to strike under expanded multi-employer bargaining streams, which constitutes an early Christmas present for union bosses and the broader union movement. This will inevitably lead to more strikes across the nation. Labor's so-called handbrake on industrial action is, in reality, like being hit by a piece of wet lettuce. The requirement that employers and unions must enter into compulsory conciliation before legal strikes can occur is a complete farce. I absolutely agree with Senator Lambie, who said in her contribution we are all fearful of what's going to happen in the next 12 months.

I have had many people, some of whom do not support our side of politics, say to me that this is the biggest own goal that Labor could ever deliver. This is a massive own goal. This is giving the union movement the ability to run the country. The only exemption from multi-employer bargaining is for businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. Apart from all the other costs, complexity and fears that businesses will have—some 56,000 businesses employ between 20 and 200 people—it will also stop businesses wanting to employ more than 20 people. If you're a business that employs 10 or 15 people, why on earth would you want to grow? Why on earth would you say, 'Okay, I want to put in another 10 people'?

This is a job destroyer, not a job creator. I will tell you how we know: we know because this dirty rotten plan was not revealed by the Labor Party before the election. If this was such a good policy—and senators opposite know this—Labor would have been championing this policy before the election. But, no, it was kept a secret. It was kept a secret for a very good reason: if Labor had gone out and spoken about the elements of this bill, Labor would not have got elected—not in a million years. Australians would never endorse these extreme IR changes; they simply wouldn't. They would not trust Labor giving this amount of power to the unions.

We know, from when we asked for the modelling in estimates, there is not one scintilla of evidence to support the claim that this is good for jobs and good for wages. This is good for the unions' game plan. In reality, the union movement's biggest gift is the election of the most extreme left-wing Prime Minister in living memory, who doesn't have a ticker, who doesn't have the courage—unlike Paul Keating, unlike Bob Hawke, even unlike Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard—who doesn't have what it takes to stand up to the union movement to get the balance right in the best interests of all Australians.

I condemn this bill in the strongest possible terms. I condemn the fact that this has been rushed through without giving the opposition and the crossbench an appropriate amount of time to scrutinise this bill. I condemn the fact that the very rudimentary committee process has not given Australians a proper opportunity to make submissions in relation to this bill.

I want to share the response of the Geelong Manufacturing Council. We know that nearly every major employer group across this country has condemned this bill, even the Geelong Manufacturing Council, which was pleading with manufacturers to be exempt from the bill. This is the first time I have ever seen the Geelong Manufacturing Council make a very strong statement like this about a government getting a policy wrong. When we were elected in 2013, Geelong was on its knees. We worked so closely with the council and with Geelong manufacturers after Ford decided to shut down on Labor's watch, when Alcoa was on its knees. Successive coalition governments worked to get Geelong to where it is now. It is an extraordinary development, that the Geelong Manufacturing Council is calling on the Senate not to pass this bill. In fact, in a letter to crossbench senators, the Geelong Manufacturing Council said:

Provisions … undermine the system of enterprise bargaining and the comprehensive system of modern awards that have served manufacturing and employees well for decades;

Provisions … risk unfairly subjecting broad sectors to centralised settings of terms and conditions, reducing individual enterprise-level autonomy and competitiveness; and

The criteria for access to the 'single interest' bargaining and supported bargaining frameworks may be used to achieve industry sector agreements in a wider range of sectors than purportedly intended.

This is ringing the alarm bells. I say, 'Shame on the member for Corangamite,' and 'Shame on the member for Corio, the Deputy Prime Minister.' In their own backyard, they have failed to listen to the likes of the Geelong Manufacturing Council and to consider the threat that this poses not just to manufacturers in our region, where my office is based, but for manufacturers around the country. So I say, 'Shame on Labor.' This is a disgrace, along with the decision to abolish the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. It is appalling that the likes of John Setka are celebrating the abolition of the ABCC, saying, 'We're now back in town,' and, 'We can now move into non-union workplaces.' This is the biggest gift for the union movement and the extreme elements of the union movement, but it shows how weak and how pathetic this Labor government is. It shows how weak this Prime Minister is. It shows how weak this Deputy Prime Minister is—he couldn't even stand up for manufacturers in Geelong. This bill is appalling. It's going to set our country backwards.

In the very limited time that we have left, I can only urge Senator Pocock: please have a dramatic change of heart. Allow this bill to be properly considered. Do not pass this bill this week without much further work. I absolutely condemn this bill in the strongest terms possible.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I want to start by commending the work of Adam Bandt in the other place and my Senate colleague Barbara Pocock in securing important improvements and amendments to this legislation. The Greens are committed to getting workers a fair deal at a time when wages are flatlining and the cost of living is spinning out of control. Poverty, ultimately, is a political choice. Whether we are talking about the industrial relations setting in this country that privileges profits over wages or the welfare payments that keep millions below the poverty line, we received a clear mandate for action on this and other measures in the election, and this bill, well, it is a start.

The abolition of the ABCC is absolutely critical and it's an important feature of this bill.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can hear the coalition carrying on over there because their decade of delivering for the bosses is finally a decade in the past. I was lucky enough to watch the film Lethal Bias in August in this parliament, and credit to the CFMMEU for bringing that to parliament and for telling the truth about the ABCC. It's a powerful film, and I would recommend it to those who haven't seen it. I commend it to the coalition. It shows the real safety risks, the lethal safety risks, that construction workers face just going to work. And it shows the aggressive anti-union bias of the ABCC in shutting down the unions, prosecuting union officials and union members because they had the wrong sticker on their hard hat or they fly a flag on the crane. Well it is about time we abolished the ABCC. It was nothing more than an attempt to weaken unions, to attack the construction unions, regardless of safety, by the now very former Abbott government. Its removal, like the removal of that Prime Minister and the removal of the coalition government, is well overdue.

We also strongly support the multi-employer bargaining as an important way of delivering improved wages and conditions, especially for those precarious low-paid workers in industries like retail, hospitality and child care. I want to express my high regard for the work of RAFFWU, who have been excellent advocates in this space, as they have been excellent advocates for their members and who are part of why we are seeing this political change and this legal change in the law. It's critically important to ensure that no low-paid workers—no workers—will go backwards with the passage of this bill. We know already millions of workers are doing it tough, and a serious rebalancing is needed solely in favour of those workers across the country who need a fair wage.

It was always the Greens' goal as we reviewed this bill and sought amendments to it in the other place and here to ensure that no worker was worse off. That's why I particularly want to commend the work of my colleagues in ensuring that there are secured guarantees that parents will have for an enforceable right to request unpaid parental leave. I credit Senator Pocock for that work and I also credit the work of Adam Bandt and the team that protected the existing better off overall test, the BOOT test, and especially its coverage for prospective workers. The legislation, as originally drafted, would have removed prospective workers from those protections contained in the BOOT—the better off overall test. That almost inevitably would have seen those workers having lower wages and worse conditions than even applied under a modern award—a real danger in the original drafting of the bill. Thank goodness for the negotiations, the work and the amendments of the Greens to remove those provisions from the bill and protect the BOOT.

Let's be clear, this will be an important win for workers, especially low-paid workers. It's a good check on the work that we are doing in this place, to do our own BOOT test on the legislation, and this legislation well and truly satisfies that test. Workers will now have an enforceable right to unpaid parental leave. There will be better work-life balance. There will be able to be multi-employer bargaining to lift wages, especially in sectors like retail, hospitality and child care. That is a really good start but there is so much more to do.

To those out there who are doing it tough, working full-time and still struggling to afford rent and bills, we hear you. We are working to get laws for workers, not the just those designed to deliver corporate profits or the increased returns for billionaire shareholders. I have to tell you, there is a long list of work still to be done with this, whether it is sick leave for casuals or a move away entirely from casual and insecure work towards solid wages and conditions for all workers and moving towards a four-day working week, where we finally get the balance right between work, our families and our social lives. But for now we're going to stare down the rhetoric, the attacks and the inflated, angry response from the coalition and their few billionaire mates who are opposing this legislation and we're going to legislate this bill. We are going to take that first serious step towards making work fairer in this country.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. We have been saying since the very start that we're happy with the majority of the bill—even more than that, we're happy with 85 per cent. We are happy to support the changes around low-paid workers in feminised industries and low-paid workers more broadly. I am on board with this. I've worked in low-paid jobs myself. I've got family members who are in the paddocks and the factories. They're doing low-paid jobs right now. My partner works in aged care so, believe me, I know how hard it is to make ends meet.

I am here in this place because I want to make good laws that support people who are struggling, but I don't think this is a good law—not all of it anyway. This is good law bundled with bad law. It could be made better but it won't be. It promises things it will never deliver. I wish the government was right when it says that this is all that's standing between low-paid workers and a pay rise before Christmas. I don't believe that at all. That's less than a month away. We all know that won't happen. I'm sorry the government has made this false promise.

What also makes me upset is that the changes this bill is making go far beyond what the government said it will do. The government has pushed these major changes through in a really sloppy way. The government has been a little tricky. There are changes in this bill that they didn't tell us they'd be making; changes they didn't tell the voters about during the election campaign.

This bill will change how employees work with their employers on reaching an agreement about pay and other entitlements. It will change how businesses work with each other to bargain with their employees. It will change who regulates the building and construction industry and registered organisations. It will change how and when strikes can take place.

People have raised concerns with us about some of these changes. We were told that the wishes of small businesses and their employees could be vetoed by unions even if those employees aren't part of the unions. We were told that some employees would be worse off with the changes to flexible work arrangements. Those employees are on a good wicket at the moment. They don't want these changes but they would have to go along with it. We were told that an employer would be included in a bargaining process even if they didn't want to be.

These things don't seem fair to me. I don't understand why one side should have it better than the other. We shouldn't be favouring unions over business. We shouldn't be favouring business over unions. I think there should be equality between both sides in a workplace bargain and this bill doesn't do this. That's why we wanted the government to split this bill. We were happy to pass the 85 per cent, but there's a whole bunch of changes that will be coming with this bill that we wanted more time to look at. We wanted to look more closely at the concerns that were raised with us, concerns like those I just mentioned. Maybe we need all of these changes. The government certainly thinks we do. They think if we don't support it we aren't in favour of getting wages moving. Well, I don't agree with that. I'm in favour of higher wages, of better awards. I would be happy if the government used its power to make those kinds of changes as soon as possible. But I can't stand here with my hand on my heart and say that I agree with all the changes this bill makes. I can't honestly tell you that you would be better off.

The parts of this bill that don't work can be fixed but that takes time and it's what we have been denied throughout this whole process. We need time to get this right. I don't want to get something like this wrong. It's not just me. The negotiations on this bill have been hard. The minister will be the first one to tell you that.

I want to talk a bit about the process now because that's important too. The bill is 250 goddamn pages long and we have had just a month to consider it. A couple of weeks after the bill was introduced, the government put up 150 amendments in the other place—150 of them! That came to 34 pages. This means the government has asked us to consider almost 300 pages of changes to the industrial relations system in the last month. These aren't little changes. They are fundamental changes, and that's not the end of it. There will be more. The government will be putting up a bunch of other amendments that will get Senator Pocock over the line. I haven't seen those amendments yet. How am I supposed to satisfy myself that my vote is in the best interests of the people of Tassie—employees and employers?

I'm sorry to say it, but this whole process has been a bit of a mess. Why didn't the government just try to get this right the first time? If the government took the time to draft this legislation well, if it gave us time to consider these changes in detail, maybe I wouldn't be standing here saying I'm going to be abstaining. I cannot, in good conscience, endorse a bill that has been amended in terms I haven't seen—that I haven't been given the chance to see. I don't want to block this bill, but I wish we had a government that would work with us to find a path to back it—all of it, not just 85 per cent.

If the government had worked with us slowly and carefully, maybe they wouldn't have needed to introduce 150 amendments in the House, and more in the Senate. There are no winners here, but I hope the people back home know that I'm trying to do my best by all of them. It hasn't been easy. My hope is that these concerns that have been raised with us have been addressed through the amendments in the other place and through the amendments Senator Pocock has secured. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I can hardly say the words 'secure jobs and better pay', because the bill will do neither. Senator Tyrell, bravo to you. That was a great articulation of everything that is wrong with this bill and the utter disgrace it is.

Many of my colleagues have gone through the many ways that this is destructive and duplicitous and spoken about the lack of transparency and consultation for the largest change to our IR system in over 30 years. The government is introducing, as we have heard, 250 pages of legislation that this place has had less than a month to review. There are150 amendments, plus all of these nurses' ball amendments from Senator Pocock. With the greatest degree of hubris I have heard in this chamber in eight years, he is suddenly riding in on a big white horse to save us all from having to do the job that we do very well: scrutinising important, significant legislation for this nation.

I couldn't help thinking last night, while listening to Senator Pocock's extraordinary contribution to this debate, where he referred to himself over 100 times—I have never heard anybody talk about themselves so much in a speech—but it was like he was coming in, this great activist, to save Australian workers, as if he is the only person in this place who wants people to have jobs and to have good conditions and wages as high as can be afforded. Colleagues, let me tell you: Senator Pocock is not riding into Australia on a big white horse to help us all single-handedly; he is riding the trade union Trojan horse into workplaces right across this nation. It is a disgrace.

Sadly, Senator Pocock, the way you have behaved on this legislation, it was clear last night you believed what you were saying: that you can have consultations on behalf of the ACT—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Reynolds, I just remind you to make your remarks to the chair. Thank you.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock can say he is saving the people of the ACT through the few consultations he has had with businesses here in the ACT, and somehow it is okay to do that on behalf of all other Australian workers. Through you, Chair, I say this to Senator Pocock: this will be your legacy in this place. As Senator Tyrell has said, this will have devastating consequences. It has not been properly considered.

You have decided. You are in a very, very important position with the balance of power, as a new senator, and you have used it. In one sense, I hope that you have genuinely been duped by Labor and the ACTU on these nurses' ball deals and amendments that you've done that we have not yet seen. I hope that you've been duped and it's not the 30 pieces of silver. Either way, for whatever reason it is—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Reynolds, I remind you, once again, to make your remarks to the chair and to be careful in intimating emotive—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. I withdraw that expression. Instead of—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds, you haven't got the call yet. I am reminding you to think about the words before you speak and to impugn another senator by allocating a motive. We've had a bit of a riff on that today, so we might avoid that, if possible. If you would like to continue your remarks, please be mindful of those two points.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that. I am sorry, I got a bit carried away with my anger at this bill and what is being done by those opposite, the Greens and Labor, with the support of a new senator to this place—well intentioned but who, I believe, has been completely duped. I hope it is just duping and nothing else.

This bill is of great concern to Western Australians. Unfortunately, there has been no opportunity for Western Australian businesses, large and small, to actively engage and comprehensively provide submissions and input into this process, because, again, in this place those opposite, with the support of Senator Pocock, have denied the normal processes. I say shame on all of you because we know what is going to happen. It will not result in an increase in real wages for Australian workers. It will increase exponentially the activism and the reach of trade union movements, which, of course, is what this was all about. Senator Polley gave away the game last night. When one of my colleagues was commenting that this hadn't been consulted on, Senator Polley interjected by saying: 'Of course, we're the Labor Party. What else did you expect we were going to do?' I think that says it all about the ethics and the behaviour of those opposite on this bill.

I say, through you, Chair, to Senator Pocock, as other speakers have done, it is not too late to say: 'I was wrong. We do need more time. We need time to go through the legislation for the committee to do further scrutiny for all Australians to have the opportunity to engage, if they want to, and for this place to do what it does best on behalf of all Australians. That is, scrutinising legislation and amendments in a careful, deliberate way on a bill that will be the most consequential on Australian workers in the last 30 years.'

For all of those reasons and all of the reasons that my colleagues here have said in great detail why this is such bad legislation, I would urge those opposite that it is not too late, because this is not in the best interests of Australian workers.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't intending to give a contribution to this important debate, but I received a letter today which made me think I should actually make sure that these views are put on record. I won't be taking up too much of the chamber's time, for I know it is short. It was a letter all Tasmanian senators received today from the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, and I think it is important to put this on record given the contents of the letter. I will read it out as I think it is important, and I am glad I have a couple of Tasmanian colleagues here to hear me do so. I'm sure they've received the letter, but let's give it voice in this debate, because they have been excluded from consultation on this important piece of legislation which will change the IR landscape in this country.

The letter received today at around lunchtime reads as follows: 'Dear Senator, The Launceston Chamber of Commerce is seriously concerned with the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 (the bill) and the effect that it will have on business in Launceston and Northern Tasmania, particularly on our small and medium enterprises.

'In July this year, businesses were faced with increasing wage costs, increased super guarantee contributions and now surging electricity prices. Many businesses are still recovering from the dramatic effect of COVID-19, and currently there are very few industries that aren't facing the demands of doing business with staff shortages.

'With the cost of living increasing, it's expected that discretionary spending will drop and, as a consequence, many of our small and medium businesses will see a drop in revenue. The last thing businesses need is rushed new rules and more red tape.

'According to an article in the Australian Financial Review, the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations showed that small businesses can expect the bargaining process to cost them, on average, $14,638; medium businesses, $75,148; and large businesses, $94,311. These are costs that businesses may not be able to afford and may seriously jeopardise the future of businesses, particularly small and medium businesses in northern Tasmania.

'In addition to the above concerns, we're equally concerned with (1) the pace at which the bill has progressed through the parliament and (2) while we appreciate that amendments to the bill will see businesses with 15 staff or less excluded from the bill, it still means that small businesses with over 15 employees will be forced to adopt workplace arrangements and pay rates that they have had no role in negotiating. We also question the decision to use actual staffing numbers rather than FTEs.

'While we appreciate that the Australian government wants to pass the bill this year, this is an incredibly busy time for most businesses, and we believe it should be held off until the new parliamentary term.

'Above all, we're seriously concerned that business organisations such as the Launceston Chamber of Commerce were not consulted at all or engaged with during the drafting of this legislation. The Launceston Chamber of Commerce does not support the bill and joins the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and other business chambers from around Australia in calling the Senate to split the bill to allow further time for careful examination of businesses' concerns. Failing this, we urge the Senate to oppose the bill.'

The letter was sent from Kate Daley, the president, and Will Cassidy, the executive officer. I think it is important to put those concerns on record, because, as I said, the fact that an entity like that has not been consulted in the drafting of the legislation to me is extremely concerning. The LCCI is one of the peak bodies in Tasmania. I know that Senator Brown and Senator Urquhart, one very fine southern Tasmanian senator and one very fine northern Tasmanian senator there—

A government senator: Northwestern!

Northwestern—I beg your pardon. You are quite right—not the parochialism of something that's rife in our state! But they would be equally concerned, without putting words in their mouths, about the lack of consultation that occurred on the drafting of this bill and the fact that we have legislation before this parliament when entities like that, who represent employer groups, have had no input, no consultation on the initial draft, on the proposed amendments. I note that we now have Senator Askew here as well, another fine northern Tasmanian senator who would share the concerns that the Launceston Chamber of Commerce have provided to us today and another recipient of this letter.

When we are talking about these extreme industrial relations laws we have to acknowledge the points that have been made by many in this debate so far—the devastating impact that some of these changes are going to have, particularly on small to medium business enterprises. We know—and I know you know, Acting Deputy President Henderson—that in small regional communities on the beautiful coast of New South Wales we don't have large employers; we don't have big multinationals occupying hundreds of square metres, employing hundreds of people. They're small to medium businesses. They're the ones who are going to be hit hardest by this. They're the ones who are going to find it hard to make ends meet, as the president and the EO of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce and Industry have said, with this confluence of increasing costs.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A fine organisation.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a fine organisation, as Senator Bragg says. These increasing costs, surging electricity prices, increasing costs of maintaining property and assets and of meeting employee expenses all come together and put pressure on businesses like there is no tomorrow. In the end, if a business can't make ends meet, if they can't continue to trade, then what are they going to do? They don't operate in perpetuity. They don't just keep trading forever without facing financial pressure and ultimately closing their doors. What happens when a business closes its doors? Employees lose their jobs. I tell you what, if there's one thing worse than not getting a pay rise, it's not having a job—you don't get paid. This is the problem with this. I don't think the consequences have been properly enunciated here.

As I said, I was not intending to make a contribution on this bill; I think my colleagues have very fairly and well canvassed the concerns that have been raised by those in our community who will be impacted, both employees and employers. But there is this letter and the fact that this organisation, so central to northern Tasmania's economy, to small and medium enterprises, has not had a say. I wonder whether Senator Polley, for example, or any of the other Labor senators from Tasmania have reached out to the Launceston Chamber of Commerce. As proponents of the legislation—

I do admire Senator Urquhart's wishful thinking that when I hear an alarm I might stop, but I will not. I shall continue.

A government senator interjecting—

I know. I'm alert but not alarmed. My point, though, is that I wonder whether any of the Tasmanian Labor contingent have reached out to the Launceston Chamber of Commerce and whether they would accept my invitation today to come on down. I'll join Senator Askew when we get out of this place at the end of this week. I will drive to Launceston and I will meet you there and we can sit down with the board of this organisation—we can perhaps sit down with some of its members—and we can talk through some of their concerns.

It will be interesting to see whether they would be able to sit there and look into the eyes of these businesses that are facing these increased costs and tell them, 'Hey, don't worry. It's all a scare campaign. It will make no difference,' or whether they will hear these concerns and finally realise that these increased costs that are going to get even larger will have an impact on businesses, will have an impact on the capacity to employ and will have an impact on whether these jobs continue to exist.

How can a small business cover the cost of $14,638, on average, to engage in the bargaining process? How can a medium business fork out well on the way to $80,000? Where is that in a business's operating capital in any given year? How is this fair to mum-and-dad businesses, where the people who own the business have mortgaged their homes to ensure that they can keep businesses running. They've taken a risk. They're employing others. How is this in any way fair on those businesses?

It is the opinion of the opposition and, I'm sure, of organisations like the Launceston Chamber of Commerce that these changes will result in more industrial action. These changes will result in more strikes. These changes will result in a situation where there will be a reduction in productivity. The changes will harm the economy more broadly and, again, are going to have an impact on whether people are able to keep their jobs or not. This is the end result. This is the issue we are talking about here. Everyone wants a pay rise and—do you know what?—it's good that people get pay rises. I know that my family, who have run small businesses up until very recently, always paid above award. That's good, because you have to do that to attract good employees. No-one wants to employ a bad employee. You want to treat good employees well so they stay, so you do what you can to keep them. But in this situation, where costs are going to become so burdensome on a business, even paying the wage bill is going to become impossible. As I said before, the end result will be that a business can no longer operate. It will no longer be solvent, perhaps. It will look at laying off staff to make ends meet. To that end, I share the concerns of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce. I do support the views that they've expressed, and I look forward to Senator Brown, Senator Urquhart, Senator Polley and Senator Bilyk coming on a drive with me to Launceston to catch up with the good folk of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce and justifying to them why they support this disastrous bill.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important opportunity for all of us to make some remarks on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill, which is part of the Labor government's agenda for business, apparently, and for driving the economy. This is one of their major initiatives. I have often referred to this government as the government for vested interests. I will, perhaps, trademark the term at some stage. The reason I call it the government for vested interests—it will catch on, don't worry—is that, if you are a class action law firm or a big industry super fund or a union, you go to the top of the list. Your log of claims—the grievances you may have about your legal situation—are considered very carefully by this government. If you are a punter, a consumer, you've got no chance of getting your issues examined by this government, because these organisations, who are fellow travellers with the Labor Party—some of them are financial fellow travellers, some of them are perhaps social groupies—are dominating this government's agenda.

I'm not a terribly partisan person and I have sometimes agreed with the Labor Party over the years, but I'd have to say that the budget, which is supposed to be the centrepiece of any government's overall economic strategy, was extraordinary in its lack of focus on small business and on driving private investment and growth. That is because, when you are solely focused on working through a log of claims from various bloodsuckers and rent seekers, you miss the broader economic issues that the country faces. So what the budget did not have was a set of policies to drive enterprise and small business. Instead we see a hodgepodge of random pieces of legislation which have clogged up this parliament, which have all been written down at Trades Hall or Casselden Place—or wherever all the super funds people live—or down at the class action law firms. The manifestation of being the government for vested interests is legislation for vested interests.

About 120 years ago there were these two countries called Australia and Argentina, and they were both similarly quite wealthy. Then Australia and Argentina went down very different tracks in the 20th century. In the main, Australia has been run generally quite well by people who were prepared to take a broader view and take the public interest into account when creating economic policies. Some of those policies have been bad, but I think they were genuinely created with the view of taking the public interest into account. Meanwhile, our friends in Argentina had their governments overrun by vested interests—small cabals of people and groups that put their narrow self-interest ahead of the national interest. They put themselves at the centre of the economic and policy settings of that country.

We are now in a situation where a small group of organisations—unions and super funds and class action law firms—are basically being given the keys to the city. We have heard in this chamber many times over these past weeks discussion about Mr Stephen Jones, who's the Assistant Treasurer. So far, he'd be winning the gold in terms of the government for vested interests. He's the chief featherer of nests in the government for vested interests, but Mr Dreyfus is probably not too far behind, with his efforts on class action lawyers. Of course, the silver medallist here is Mr Burke, with this hodgepodge bill that we're considering here. It's all part of trying to deliver the same big plan.

As I said, I'm not a very partisan person but, being a parliamentarian, I do think about politics from time to time, and it's clear that the Labor Party's political strategy here is to pay off all these people and get them off our backs so we don't have to do any more of this crap in the next two years of our term. Their view is that this stuff is probably not too flash for the economy—I'm sure that's their real view—but they've just got to get these people off their backs. This is the pay-off: putting the unions back in the centre of the economy, stripping away transparency from super fund members and removing regulations to require class action law firms to act in the best interests of members. That's just a pay-off.

Then, when we get to year 2, we might think about what the broader issues are that the economy is facing, and we might do a budget, which might mention small business, maybe, if we can discover what a small business is—one that hasn't been unionised and run into the ground. But, of course, when you hate small business, when it's in your DNA to do so, you tend to forget about it some days. Sometimes you can hate and forget about things; trust me. So we might see a budget that mentions small business. We might even see a budget which presents some policies designed to increase private investment, because that is actually going to be the measure of whether or not this economy is going to be able to create more jobs in the future. More jobs in the future: that is their stated objective, I'm sure.

Of course, we hear about higher wages. Now, I have to say that, of all the strange things that people get away with in this building, perhaps the greatest of them all is the unions and the Labor Party talking about their concern about wages. If they were really worried about wages, they would've listened to Mr Kennedy's address to Senate estimates, in which he said that 80 per cent of the wage increases which are projected in the budget would be eaten up by increases in compulsory super. So here we are again—another scheme to enrich and refeather the nest. It's a pretty good nest. I'll tell you what: it's a pretty flash nest. It's warm. It would get you through a Canberra winter. It's a nice nest, but the nest is eating up the wage increases. They come into the chamber and talk about their concerns about the lack of wages growth. Well, 80 per cent of the wages growth is not going to the workers; it's going off to the bloodsuckers at the super funds, who charge high fees on it. It's going into a locked box that they can't get access to. But that is a blind spot for these people.

The Labor Party has a series of blind spots, and, of course, in the budget we see this hilarious policy called the Housing Accord, which is basically that we will pay the super funds $350 million to buy people's houses—and to build people's houses perhaps. This is on top of the $150 billion that they receive each and every year in compulsory contributions, as measured by APRA. So we're going to give the super funds more public money to own the people's houses. But we're against the people using their own super to have their own houses. They are so blinded by the propaganda and the ideology that they've eaten and consumed for 30 years, which is now pushed and recirculated by the vested interests which make huge donations to their party. And, of course, they're filtered through the super funds.

This takes us back to our other favourite issue: the removal of transparency from the super funds. Mr Jones's first act as the Assistant Treasurer was to remove transparency from the super funds. As a result, by the end of this decade, $30 million will have been paid from the super funds into the unions. But Mr Jones has now made a regulation which covers that up. People are now getting their annual member statements from their super funds—I got one today—and it's now aggregated so you can't actually see how much money is going where. Under our regulation, you could see that, okay, I'm in super fund A and it has sent $3 million to this union and $5 million to this related party. Now you can't see any of that information, so it is a very good example of the distorted priorities of this government with regard to vested interests.

But, in relation to these matters, you'd have to say that the chief of the vested interests is probably the ACTU—although it could be the Cbus Super fund. They have a fellow called Mr Wayne Swan as their president, and he's also the president of the Labor party. He's been out in the media this week saying that the Cbus Super fund will be giving $500 million of their money to the Housing Accord. We have no idea how it will work, but I'm thinking that maybe he could have some inside information because he's got the dual hat thing happening. He's running the Labor Party and he's running the Cbus Super fund, so he must know how the scheme works before the rest of the market knows, which is another example of these vested interests.

But, of course, this bill is designed to smash small business. Labor hates small business. They always have. They've always hated the idea that no union officials are on these sites. This is designed to try and turn the clock back, not to try and create jobs. It's certainly not designed to create a higher wage environment. If they wanted to do that, they would have made the super system voluntary in some form. This is about ensuring that there is a role, relevance, and funding for their greatest cash cow, the unions.

When the Labor Party talk about a donation reform and a campaign finance reform, I always think that's a great thing to hear about because, of course, they always want to try and capture the political parties but leave out the key campaigners, the people with the most money, who run campaigns in this country—the unions, the super funds, and all their other fellow travellers. Personally, I think we are going in the wrong direction on this particular issue. I've long favoured the idea of a very simple, very clean, small business award with basic conditions that protect people from exploitation and whatnot. But we are going in the wrong direction. We are going for full reregulation by putting these vested interests back at the centre of negotiations.

Why would a small business that doesn't have any members of the unions, that doesn't want to have anything to do with the union, have to negotiate with the union? It's absolutely insane. To think that 10 per cent of the workforce now is covered by unions, and we're trying to turn ourselves into a nimble, agile economy, competing with the rest of the world, trying to attract marginal capital and the best minds the world has to offer, and here we are trying to bung up the economy with all these additional obligations to bring the past back into the future. It is just absolutely insane. As I say, when your frame of reference is, 'Well, we don't put small business in our budget, and therefore we don't care about it. We historically haven't liked it.' It's probably not a great surprise that here we are saying, 'Okay, we're actually now going to bring the unions back into the small business world.'

The whole idea of multi-employer bargaining, which is estimated to cost up to $23,000 for a small business, which is a significant sum for a small business—when you've only ever spent your whole life working for the Public Service, I guess you don't really have any sense of that—it would cost $130,000 for a medium business and even more for a large business. The principles apply. I've always thought the segmentation between large and small was quite weird. We want small businesses to become large businesses. There's nothing wrong with big businesses. Certainly multinational corporations that engage in base erosion and tax evasion should be brought to heel, but there is nothing wrong with big business. So the idea that we try and bung up the work for big business is the same logic you would apply to small business.

In terms of the caveats that have been negotiated here, I'm not sure how good they'll be. My starting principle would be: Why do you need to have a union with these businesses in the first place, given you already have extensive legal protections in the law? And the people that are saying they're worried about wages growth are the same people that are stealing the money through the compulsory super increases. They're taking 80 per cent of the wages increases. Every time I hear these people come in here or talk out there when they're doing their silly press conferences and talk about wages, it is absolute rubbish. This whole agenda and this government's focus is on the vested interests and making that great big cushy, feathered nest a goose or down pillow and making it as best as they can for themselves. They're only interested in their own narrow self-interest. Unless we're careful, we will be the next Argentina—a once-strong country run into the ground by dodgy and dirty vested interests.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, I have to rise and speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. It's disappointing to have to do so, because all my life I've categorised the Labor Party as being the wreckers of the Australian workforce. I grew up listening to my father constantly telling me how the wharfies went on strike in World War II and wouldn't help our troops out and export our wool et cetera et cetera.

I don't really see this bill as being the final nail in the coffin for small industry and small business here in Australia—no, no, no. The Labor Party put the final nail in the coffin of small business a long time ago. I call this the grave digger's bill. Basically we're now chucking dirt on small business so that they'll be completely forgotten about and erased from history, six feet under, with this ridiculous idea that we can have multi-pattern bargaining.

That is Labor for you. They have to mandate everything. They just have to. There is no individual in the Labor Party's psyche. No, it's just communism: 'We're going to own all the property, we're going to have one set of rules.' We see that constantly. Everything the Labor Party does is all about centralisation, command and control. We saw it with superannuation in the early 1990s, where they slowly but surely raised the superannuation level from two per cent to 12 per cent. If they get their way and get a second term—they're already talking about it—they'll lift it to 15 per cent. Why don't you just take 100 per cent of it now? This is the Labor Party.

It's the same with child care. They want to tell parents that if you want any childcare support you have to give it to the childcare centre, because that way they get to unionise parenthood. This is actually why they push child care so high; without child care, the union movement, which is down to about 10 per cent of the workforce, would be much, much smaller. The only union that is rising in this country is United Workers Union, because of the subsidies going into the childcare sector. It goes on and on and on. We see it with the renewable energy target. It started off at five per cent, then it went to 23 per cent, then it's going to go to 43 per cent, and then it's going to be net zero. It will go on and on and on.

It's important to note just how much damage the Labor Party has done to industry and especially to small business. I want to reflect on the election last weekend. Of course Labor is gloating because they won. They won the election, that's right, but you know who lost: Victoria. Victoria didn't just lose out last weekend; they started to lose out 40 years ago when former Labor senator for Victoria John Button introduced the Button plan, which was the first step in the destruction of the manufacturing industry in Victoria. Victoria was once the jewel in the crown of the Liberal Party because of that strong manufacturing base that has had the guts ripped out of it. If they weren't forced to close down, they've gone offshore, because effectively we had this crazy neoliberal ideology that somehow we were going to compete against cheap Asian imports. It never happened. All that's done is destroy Victoria.

Combine the Button plan in 1985 with the Dawkins plan in 1990, where everyone got to go to university and get a degree. Because of that ridiculous policy that was introduced, another crazy Hawke-Keating policy, we've now got the situation where we have all of these students and Marxist academics controlling Victoria. A couple of years later, we got compulsory superannuation, which gave us another army of financial engineers in Victoria. Most of the industry super funds are centred in Victoria. These guys have well over $1 trillion and there's over $3 trillion and climbing in super. It is effectively going to be bigger than our GDP. This wealth is centralised in the hands of unelected board members.

I want to talk about democracy. We are not living in a democratic society in this country. When you have got trillions of dollars of wealth and our infrastructure controlled by unelected superannuation boards, both private and industry—I'm not taking sides when it comes to superannuation; the whole lot of it is communism and Marxism and fascism rolled into one, if you ask me. The fact that we then walked away from TAFE—the hands-on people that actually built things in this country—destroyed our manufacturing sector and destroyed our small businesses. We have now got more people on the teat of the nation, relying on government handouts through universities, through ever-increasing superannuation policy—academics, you name it. It has made our country very, very unproductive.

Then we move forward two generations. We had the introduction of the Fair Work Act. Of course, there is nothing fair about the Fair Work Act. Interestingly enough, the head of the Fair Work Commission was Iain Ross, who Paul Keating himself admitted was the architect of superannuation, along with himself and Bill Kelty. They must have been sitting back there in a room somewhere in the early nineties, thinking, 'How can we take over this country?' I have to hand it to the Labor Party, because when it comes to bringing in communism by stealth in this country, you guys have done a very, very good job of it. I can tell you that I've had over 30 years in finance and I've never seen freedom as a line item on the balance sheet; if you want to be free you have to be productive. Our freedom comes from affluence, which comes from productivity. We should never ever forget that. Indeed, Robert Menzies himself said that we should not go back to the old and selfish notions of laissez-faire. He also said that the rich and powerful should look after themselves.

While we were focusing on the so-called ideology of the free market, the left over there, the unions, were actually ripping out ever-increasing amounts of superannuation from workers' pay packets. I fail to see how they think we can live in a country with a free market when the government is taking a percentage of workers' wages. They never even asked them; there was never a referendum about superannuation in this country. New Zealand had a referendum about compulsory superannuation and they voted against it 92 per cent to eight per cent. But no, we weren't asked about that in this country. The Labor Party just decided to jack it up, and they're pinching money. This is super, right? This is what they do with superannuation—I'll tell you what that little ad where they do this with their hands is symbolic of. What happens then is that the industry funds take their fees and then Labor comes along and picks up the fees behind their backs, just like that. That's the way that the Labor Party works. This is another bit of compliance on small business. You have to fill out your superannuation forms and you have all these rules. It's more compliance for small business and it takes a lot of time. I've worked in public practices before and it's very time-consuming just to pay that extra nine going on 10½ per cent.

But this bill is riddled with so much conflict, complexity and uncertainty. Industry is extremely concerned; they don't want to be dragged into multi-enterprise bargaining. It's based on this very vague notion of a 'common interest'. Well, I can tell you that that common interest is doublespeak for communism. I can just see this ending up in court. Can you just imagine going to the Fair Work Commission with the words 'common interest'? Fair Work is stacked with Labor appointees and they're actually going to punish small business at every opportunity they get. It's going to make it very difficult. And this will actually punish the workers of this country, because small business just won't want to employ anybody when they can be held to ransom by such vague terms as 'common interest'.

I don't know about you, but all these vague notions do my head in. Coming from a background in mathematics I have to find out how all these warm and fuzzy terms that Labor use hide their communism, Marxism and all that sort of stuff—it's all very scary. But I can assure you that what this bill will do, apart from put people out of work, is increase the cost of living and, if it doesn't send businesses broke, it's going to send them offshore. It's certainly not going to attract other companies to come in and set up business here. Why would you, when you can be held to ransom by the Fair Work Act? It's a real concern, and it's not surprising because this is what Labor do. They aren't going to finish until there is no more private property left in this country and free thought is completely destroyed. 'No, no, we don't want private property in this country,' this is the way the Labor Party think: 'and we don't want businesses to be flexible, innovative and able to think for themselves. And we don't want the employee and the employer to build up a relationship between each other.' With enterprise bargaining you could trust the employer and the employee. We would actually let them negotiate the best terms and tailor those so that they suited them.

That's why I don't believe in any mandates; it's why I took a stand on vaccine mandates, because I think you've got to respect the individual. That is what this party should stand for—the dignity and worth of every individual. It's got to stand for the freedom of choice and the freedom of conscience. We've got to have flexibility and the ability to innovate. That sort of stuff is what creates enterprise and entrepreneurialship that will drive productivity in this country. With productivity comes affluence, and with affluence comes freedom and the ability not to have to rely on that—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Rennick. The time for debate has expired. It being after 6.30 pm, all the questions on the second reading will now be put.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator O'Sullivan on behalf of Senator Cash on sheet 1967 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment in my name as circulated on sheet 1772:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) remove all provisions of the bill which give their trade union donors the power to veto agreements; and

(b) tighten the 'common interest test' under the 'single interest employer stream' to follow the current considerations the Minister is required to follow under the Fair Work Act 2009 as it stands".

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Brockman on sheet 1772 be agreed to.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.