Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to second the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to refer the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. As the Manager of Opposition Business just said on legislation that goes through this parliament, there are lots of precedents set by what the Manager of Opposition Business has recommended in this motion here. As he also stated, this legislation is exceptionally complex and exceptionally technical. The minister yesterday said there's going to be a great opportunity to debate this within the chamber. Yes, that is part of the process and an important part of the process. But referring this to a committee allows a lot of stakeholders to have added opportunity to air their concerns, to ask questions and to seek clarification about how it may affect their industry and/or their business. I think this is a very important reason that we do this, especially, as I said, for legislation that is exceptionally complex and exceptionally technical.

I do make the point that the minister said this is just a modest proposal on which they consulted widely. I would say, that, when this minister says 'modesty', normally it implies that he's overreaching. When he says 'consulting widely', it might have been within the union movement but definitely not necessarily with all other stakeholders. There have been some comments made about this, which I think, again, reinforce the need for this to be referred to a committee. If productivity is going to be lower, costs to businesses and families are going to be higher. We're going to be less competitive as a country. There will be more red tape, more regulation and more compliance costs. To support the fact that we need to refer this to a committee, I want to read to you a couple of comments that have already come out from people about their concerns with this legislation. These aren't my concerns; these are concerns from other people, which I think support the fact that we need to refer this to a committee.

Tanya Constable, the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, said, 'This is jeopardising the nation's future.' She, in fact, said:

Let's not sugarcoat it. These industrial relations changes are some of the most extreme interventionist workplace changes that have ever been proposed in Australia.

If that's the case, from a really important stakeholder, it supports the fact that this should be referred to a committee where some of these concerns and issues can be raised. Another stakeholder, Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia, said:

This will only add confusion and costs, while limiting the opportunities for people to get jobs with the flexibility they need.

Andrew McKellar from the ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:

The only loophole this bad legislation is looking to close is that of plummeting union membership.

…   …   …

If you are a service provider and want to advertise online, prepare for unemployment.

It's going to make you worse off.

The Master Builders Association has said: 'The worst fears of the building community have been realised with the introduction of this industrial relations bill. It takes a sledgehammer to tradies right across the country.' The Australian Industry Group chief executive said:

The Government is proposing major changes to core aspects of our workplace relations system.

These are just some comments. This has only just come out and there are some major issues and concerns that are being asked about.

This chamber and this parliament should give more opportunity to stakeholders through a committee process to air their concerns and ask their questions. Matthew Addison from the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia has said the changes would require every business to dedicate more resources, time and money towards trying to understand and implement onerous new obligations. The minister himself has made the comment that this will see costs increases, whether across food and/or transport. The NFF have come out and said:

… this is a bad bill which will make it harder and more costly to run a business in this country.

These changes aren't a genuine attempt to improve Australia's industrial relations laws, they are just a way for the Government to gift more power to the unions.

By adding union-driven layers of red tape to our workplace laws, Minister Burke will leave a legacy of sluggish productivity and higher costs for consumers.

The minister and the government are saying: 'There's nothing to see here. This is good legislation that is going to make us a more productive and better country, better for workers and better for everyone involved within the IR scheme of things.' If that's the case, then the government and the minister should have nothing to fear and nothing to hide from a parliamentary committee examining this in more detail.

The unions are very, very happy with this, but every other stakeholder that I've spoken to in the last 24 hours since this has come out has raised massive concerns. We've heard some of the comments that they've made. They think this is going to be some of the most disastrous legislation they have seen for their business and/or their industry in the history of Australia. That was one comment. That is a very serious opinion and accusation to make about legislation. I hope the minister and the government don't refuse this referral. I hope they support this being referred to the appropriate committee to undergo extensive stakeholder engagement throughout the country to address some of these fears. If the minister is right when he says that these fears are unwarranted or just a scare campaign then he has nothing to worry about with a committee inquiry. When those industry stakeholders, small businesses or big businesses appear before this committee and ask their questions to get clarity about what this regulation means to their industry and/or their business, if there is nothing to worry about and there is nothing to hide it will be a very healthy committee process and everyone can say, 'We misunderstood the legislation and we are all happy now.' That's what the minister is saying. If that's the case, let's go ahead with the committee inquiry, let's ask the questions and let's do the extensive stakeholder engagement.

The other side of this is what industry's fears are, what small businesses' fears are, what medium-sized businesses' fears are and what big businesses' fears are: is this just a power grab by the union movement that has been given to them by the minister? If that's the case, I can understand why he wouldn't want extensive engagement. I can understand why he wouldn't want ministers and members from all sides of parliament to be appearing before stakeholders who are asking specific questions, such as: Does this mean X for my business? Does this mean that I will have to do this for employees? Does this mean X for my legal costs and compliance costs? What do I have to do as a business owner and operator? If it does mean that then I understand why he won't want to do it.

If the government votes this down and doesn't want to do this, I would say to the Australian public and to Australian businesses—small, medium and large—everything that you fear about this bill is true because the government does not want public accountability and it does not want a parliamentary process and a committee process that is going to expose all the dangers that people think are in this bill.

The vote today will be interesting. Again, I reiterate: the government should be happy to go ahead with what is a precedent that has been set many times in this parliament over many, many decades for a bill that is so extensive and technical. There are lots of precedents for this. So I say to the Australian business community and every small-business owner in this country that, if this government votes down referring this to a committee to get more extensive clarification then every single fear you have about this bill that it is just a power grab by the union movement, given to them with great glee by the minister, is true.

See this speech in context