Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the proposed industrial relations reform, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, which will see sweeping workforce reforms. Right now the government would have us believe that this bill is supposed to open up discussions between employers and employees to achieve wage increases, as well as improve working conditions and improve our competitiveness in this global and technology driven world. The truth is this bill is not just about pay rises for the average Australian worker, it's a lot more complex and detailed than we have been led to believe. The bill itself has more layers than an onion, and as you try to peel it back you can't help but cry at that layers of complexity on top of more regulatory requirements for employers, especially those smaller businesses who can't afford lawyers and don't have the time or resources to be dragged in and out of negotiations.

Why is this government rushing into this—on such important legislation that will have unintended consequences—with Christmas around the corner? I don't believe anyone would negotiate a wage increase this year. As other independent members in this House have already raised, the government should allow time for complex issues such as this bill. If the changes are all about wage increases, do you think these changes will lead to wage increases in small businesses or will the increases lead to unintended consequences like job losses, where staff are put off, or higher costs which feed inflation? If the unintended consequences lead to inflation and job losses then that would be a collective responsibility of the parliament. How many in this House have worked outside of politics or had any industrial relations experience or worked in a small business?

The bill is sugar-coated with the aims of closing the gender equity pay gap and creating higher wages for low-paid workers, while burying more insidious parts of the bill. As the Council of Small Business of Australia has said, this bill could take small businesses away from managing, growing and innovating in their business and ultimately employing more staff. The council said they can support higher wages for low-paid sectors, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of our diverse small business community. As an independent member, I'm being forced to support this significant reform to industrial legislation with only minimal time to delve into this 260-page bill that would require consultation, with both big and small businesses as both these sectors have different needs and requirements to operate, not to mention those businesses that have language barriers and therefore would have limited understanding of how this piece of legislation would impact how they work, employ and operate now and into the future.

As a new government that seeks to govern fairly for all and to do things differently, not only are they rushing through this bill but they're also pitting big businesses and unions against each other, while neglecting to take into consideration how this bill would impact small businesses who are caught in the crossfire. Let me remind the people in this House: small business is the backbone of the Australian economy. They are the biggest employers in the country. In my Fowler electorate there are over 18,000 trading small businesses, with the majority owned and managed by migrants and refugees. In fact, one in three small businesses in Australia are run by migrants and refugees. According to the Refugee Council of Australia, refugees are the most entrepreneurial of small-business owners. They are twice as likely to become entrepreneurs, and two-thirds of new businesses created in Australia in the past decade have been founded by women. There has been a 46 percent jump in the number of women business owners over the past 20 years. Seeing such diverse representation in the small-business sector is important. But it will mean nothing if business owners are too intimidated to pursue their dreams due to the lengthy and complex negotiations as a result of these reforms.

My first and foremost concern is the lack of consultation with our communities. We haven't had a chance to consult with our constituents as well. It is not the first time that this government has failed to consult with my community. It's not the first time the diverse and multicultural communities of Fowler have been overlooked. How can we support anything that hasn't gone through the appropriate checks and balances to ensure the mum-and-pop corner shops, the banh mi bakeries, the family noodle shops won't be affected? In fact, after speaking to representatives from Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce and Liverpool chamber of commerce, both informed our office that they haven't received any substantial information on the bill. I, like many crossbench colleagues, have raised the fact that a bill this complex requires more consultation, and this has fallen on deaf ears. I support Senator Pocock's request to pass through the more agreeable parts of the bill by the end of the year and to allow for further consultation and amendments on the more contentious parts of the bill. This is a sensible approach to any bill of such importance and stature. But, as I understand it, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is reluctant to do so, and for that I question why. It's clear that this bill has been rushed through to avoid proper scrutiny, and it makes me concerned that the government are forcing us into voting on something that could have unintended consequences for both workers and employers.

The bill also expands a single-interest stream for allowing the Fair Work Commission to authorise workers with common interests to bargain together. This 'common interests' definition is broad and could range from geographical locations to funding models to anything in between. Without a substantive definition, there is so much scope to go wrong. This would open up a world of issues for small business, who could eventually be dragged into bargaining situations where they don't have the money to hire lawyers to enter these negotiations. I acknowledge that the workplace relations minister conceded that smaller businesses shouldn't be dragged to the negotiating table by a business with a much larger number of employees that had voted in favour of multi-employer bargaining. However, a small business is considered to be a business with a 15-employee headcount under the Fair Work Act. A business with 16 workers, including casuals, is your average for a restaurant or a busy cafe in my electorate. How can a family run business enter multi-employer bargaining situations when they lack the time, resources and funds to do so, as well as the language barrier?

They are no match for the union movement.

What we're seeing through this bill is the lumping together of big and small businesses, but they're not interchangeable. Amanda Rose, head of Small Business Women Australia and Western Sydney Women, told my office that she's one of the few people in her network who knew about the potential repercussions of these industrial relations reforms. Due to this bill, she believes that small businesses are now being demonised as greedy employers who refuse to pay their workers correctly. They've been told that if they can't pay their staff above-award rates then they deserve to be shut down. In the words of Amanda, 'Everyone acts like money grows on trees for small business'.

This is an entirely unfair characterisation for the majority of refugee and migrant small businesses I know, who play by the book, pay their taxes and work hard to achieve the Australian dream. Now, because of this bill, they're being unfairly grouped together with big businesses who can afford to pay for lawyers and who have the money and resources to enter bargaining agreements. Furthermore, many small-business owners in my area are from non-English speaking backgrounds: how does the government plan to educate them and assist them in the transitional period? I want to know what plans are in place to support small-business owners.

Having said that, I agree with the need for increased wages for the average Australian worker. I want to be clear that I do not oppose a wage increase; I just want to see a process that's open, transparent and consultative. It's important that as we strive to solve one problem we don't create greater problems for our community. I agree that the proposed supported bargaining stream could be beneficial to certain sectors of the workforce, including health care, aged-care workers and teachers, who all deserve to be paid fairly for the hard work that they do—although I must question why the government refuses to allow this and other aspects of the bill to pass through the House first, allowing us time to consider the multi-employer bargaining stream, instead of holding the House and Senate hostage.

The government have shown that they can offer wage increases to low-paid workers without the need for this bill. A recommendation by the royal commission into aged care suggested an increase in award wages to reflect the aged-care workers' true value. Based on this recommendation, temporary wage increases for the aged-care sector have been agreed to by the Fair Work Commission just last week, with the sector set to see a 15 per cent increase. I appreciate the efforts of the government to ensure our aged-care sector workers are paid appropriately for their endeavours, but if this were to apply similarly across low-paid sectors in the short term while we spent more time consulting on the more concerning aspects of the bill then surely we would be able to see wage boosts to those who need it by Christmas.

If the government are set on passing such a contentious, complex and, potentially, worrisome bill before Christmas, that's their prerogative. However, I support any measures to see a review process after 12 months to allow time for businesses to transition into this new system and so we can at least see the bill in practice before permanent implementation. Again, if we want to ensure that the policy is effective for the work then the government must be open to constructive review.

See this speech in context