Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to contribute to this debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill. I thank the previous speakers, both on this side and that side of the House, as well as the members of the crossbench who raised some interesting concerns around how this legislation has been brought into the national conversation. Such is the impact of this legislation, so profound are the costs for the workforce and the changes in the way Australia's workers go about their work that this may well be the defining legislation of this parliament. Much as we saw the mining tax define the Rudd government and the carbon tax define the Gillard government, I do believe this will be the legislation that defines this current government. In addressing this IR bill, I'm happy to state that I have no inherent animus towards unions. I'm not entering this from a union-bashing position.

I grew up on a construction site and spent most of my life in the mining industry, and I saw the decline in union membership in both of those industries during my time. When I started out in Ipswich there were union guys everywhere; if you go onto a construction site nowadays that has changed. It's the same in the mining industry. But I've always been happy to work with them and to have open fights with them. Together we work to make our workplaces safer and more productive. They're part of that conversation. What I do rally against, and what this legislation brings into the debate, is the undue accumulation of power. I rally against that, with its monopoly in business, overreach of bureaucracy and government or, as here, excessive union dominance. That's what this legislation threatens.

Our IR system is not perfect, and I'm not arguing that it is. I join with the Leader of the Opposition and many on this side—and, certainly, on the other side—in wanting to see it improved. Over the long-stay course of the last three decades we have seen many improvements made by both sides, and I recognise that. There's no argument that across Australia's history, our workplace relations have improved. In a comparative view, I look to my experience in managing projects overseas with large, unionised workforces and it would be completely untrue to say that Australia's industrial relations are not generous or supportive of workers. We live in a good country and we've worked hard to get here.

But so profound are the changes that this bill brings to the Australian workplace, it's right to shine a light on the government's attempts to rush this bill through without proper scrutiny. I refer to some of the comments the Prime Minister just made around bringing people together and seeking consensus. The actions taken in pushing this through deserve such scrutiny; the government did not take a clear or consistent position on this legislation to the election and thus cannot claim a mandate for it.

I'm sorry members opposite; I hear the interjections, but that is not true. I'd be happy to see that, because it's not there. There are conflicting accounts on what industrial relations legislation is to be brought through. A clear mandate was not sought and was not given. Labor has also refused to support the opposition's proposal. We have proposed a joint select committee inquiry into the bill, to work through it—to seek what the Prime Minister just talked about, a bringing together of people and seeking consensus. We've offered that, but it was pushed back. We've sought that and we would work with that.

So rushed is this bill that the minister has already amended the bill, on the fly, in the media, even before it hit the floor of the parliament. As legislators, every single one of us should be worried about that—every single one of us should be worried! That is not a sign of good legislation. We come here to represent our communities and to make sure that their voices are heard here—to make sure that the legislation we pass is worthy of the Australian people. To see it get changed on the fly in the media is a clear sign that this is not good legislation.

I want to talk about the impact of multi-employer bargaining on small businesses. This is introducing a huge unknown to small businesses, a segment of our economy that is inherently accepting of a higher risk profile. But in the context of the time we're seeing increasing external risks, like supply security, workforce shortages, inflation and interest rate movements. And amongst all of these risks we're bringing in this legislation. Labor's own budget highlighted how precarious our current economic situation is. The Treasurer has been at pains to point out repeatedly how troubling the economic times are and, indeed, how troubling they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. There's no way that a reduction in productivity resulting from this legislation is an answer to any of those problems.

In its current form, this legislation will have widespread and detrimental impacts on small businesses. Under this legislation, a small business is now exposed to the workplace practices in another small business whose only relationship is geographical proximity. Our workplace relations are being dragged to the lowest common denominator, and there's nothing that a small business which acts in good faith or which engages in best practice can do about it. Worse, this is a hit to small businesses that they did not see coming. According to a recent survey by the Franchise Council of Australia, 68 per cent of small franchise businesses did not understand the industrial relations changes included in the bill or know how they might impact on their business operations. Worse again, of those who felt they did understand the reforms, more than half were concerned about the changes in the bill, particularly concerning the multi-employer bargaining provisions.

Business groups across Australia, small, medium and large, have been posing their opposition to this. SEA, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia have all raised their concerns about this, and yet we're having this rushed through.

The aim of enterprise bargaining has long been to encourage and incentivise employers and employees at a workplace to come together to discuss innovation and productivity, and to find better and more rewarding ways to work together. This simply cannot occur across multiple enterprises of different sizes and interests, who will often be in commercial competition with each other, and who will have different internal operating models, commercial concerns and commercial strengths. In a modern economy, it makes no sense to lump the employees of one business in with employees of a totally separate business in the same industry. This is not a solution for a modern economy; this is a throwback to the 1970s-era union appeasement, which was detrimental back then and is detrimental now.

As with small business, this has significant impact on big business. This bill introduces a risk. I want to focus on one specific area, as the debate is being rushed through, and consensus isn't being sought and people aren't being brought together as the Prime Minister intends. This is just one star in a galaxy of issues raised by this bill. I turn specifically to the impact that this bill would have on the certainty of delivering major infrastructure in Australia. Again, I speak from my own experience and from that of people who have come to me since this bill was put forward. Managing IR risk is not new for major projects. In fact, it's an important part of that project delivery. But what this bill does is fundamentally reduce the ability of major projects to secure insurance to cover against industrial action. Business continuity insurance is hard to get—and so it should be. To get it, a project has to demonstrate that every single one of the subcontractors are operating at the highest-performing standards. It is hard to get, but under this legislation the risk of industrial action will be held in the hands of third parties, and it will then be beyond the ability of the delivery organisation to control. Business continuity insurance is now no longer just unaffordable but also simply unobtainable. You cannot manage a risk you do not hold. Major projects in Australia cannot secure that insurance that they have long been required to hold under Australian government contracts.

The fact that this issue hasn't been raised in the debate so far shows how rushed and without a mandate this position is. It shows that this is ill-thought-through. It is an ill-thought-through piece of legislation. I am standing here after the Prime Minister has spoken, raising an issue that has a significant impact on our ability to deliver major projects in Australia. Major projects in Australia are being held up because of what this will deliver, and it hasn't been thought through. There is no clearer demonstration that what we have in front of us is a government that wants to rush this legislation through without having it debated, without going through and collecting that consensus—that mandate—that it claims to have. It refuses to put it to the test like this. We hear those opposite saying, 'No, this must happen,' that this must be our fault, or something—no, these are the actions of this government. This legislation requires significant and thorough review and scrutiny. This impact will be felt across our economy. This reverses three decades of bipartisan support for enterprise level bargaining. This goes against the long-held objective of boosting productivity. And, as the single case that I described shows, this will have a detrimental impact on productivity at a time when we need to be delivering major projects in infrastructure, in defence and energy, building our nation through this period of a cost-of-living crisis. The government has handed over control to dominant unions.

See this speech in context