Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to the raft of 21 government amendments, I indicate the opposition’s support for amendments (4) and (5). We are not supportive of amendment (9) but I can indicate that, if it were to be a choice between the Greens and the government, we would support the government’s position.

In relation to items (12) to (15), I would be interested to know the attitude of colleagues on the crossbenches. These four amendments seek to raise the threshold of particular damage before a third party can take action and succeed before Fair Work Australia. For example, under the item of protected industrial action, the government is now seeking that the disruption has to be ‘for an extended period’. Rather than just showing disruption, you have to show it for an extended period. If you have disruption occurring for 24 hours but you do not know whether it is going to last for 24 hours or a week, you would have to wait a while before you could go to Fair Work Australia and say, ‘It’s for an extended period.’ Similarly, amendment (13) inserts the word ‘significantly’ and amendment (14) inserts the word ‘serious’. Amendment (15) inserts an extra subclause (4A), which says:

If the protected industrial action is threatening to cause significant harm as referred to in subsection (3), FWA must be satisfied that the harm is imminent.

You might suffer significant harm, but that is not good enough. It has to be imminent significant harm, although you might be able to show that the significant harm will be later on. For instance, in your supply of a particular material, the person to whom you are supplying might have a binding contract with you but the significant harm might not be imminent; it might be in a year’s time when you are about to renew a contract with a person to whom you are supplying. That is when the harm might be, but you might not be able to show that it is imminent. It might be when you are negotiating a contract 12 months down the track.

What I am suggesting to the Senate is that amendments (12), (13), (14) and (15) make it more difficult for third parties to be able to convince Fair Work Australia that they should intervene in certain industrial actions. If parties are damaged, the economy is damaged. The test that we as a coalition have been applying to all these measures is: what is its effect on jobs, what is its effect on small business and would it be seen as allowing excessive union power? In this case, we believe that those four amendments in particular will be damaging to jobs, especially small businesses. Further, because of the increased threshold, it will give unions more power. They can run a bit of a raid on companies and say, ‘It’s not going to be significant; it’s not going to be for an extended period of time; it’s only going to be for 24 hours,’ and as a result escape any intervention by Fair Work Australia.

I put that to my crossbench colleagues and say to them genuinely that, if they are serious about job protection and especially about small business protection—the engine room of jobs growth in this country—they might care to join with us in opposing amendments (12) to (15) inclusive. We would appreciate it if they could do us the courtesy of indicating their intention. I have put the opposition position on the record. For the record, we do not necessarily seek to confirm that by dividing the Senate if it is obvious that we are going to lose the vote. That is why I would be pleased if crossbench senators would indicate their view—but I dare say the minister has a response.