Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's management of its legislative program.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion in relation to the government's handling of its legislative program.

I believe the motion is being circulated. Can I read the motion whilst it's being circulated?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion reads:

That—

(1) The Senate notes:

a) the disastrous negotiations on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 and associated bills conducted by the Assistant Treasurer which plagued the financial industry with more uncertainty; and

b) fundamental mistakes and miscalculations in the Regulatory Impact Statement to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 demonstrate that the Albanese Labor Government is pursuing a rushed and chaotic approach instead of a proper and transparent approach for such extreme reforms.

(2) A message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence with paragraph (1) of this resolution.

(3) The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on the first sitting day of 2023.

What we have heard during the course of this week, during Senate question time, has been an endless litany from this government of failure to admit that the rushed approach to its extreme IR legislation is an approach riddled with mistakes and an approach that will have dire consequences for businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses across the Australian economy. The mistakes in the regulatory impact statement of the government are such that it is clear this government has not done its homework on the IR bills that they are seeking to ram and rush through this parliament next week. The truth is they didn't take these reforms to an election. They didn't take them the Australian people. They didn't tell them upfront what they were going to do. This is a government that, instead, in its early days decided that it would try to drive through the parliament reforms that were not communicated and make sure that in doing so it was able to deliver for its union friends that which it wasn't game to tell the Australian people about beforehand.

What we've heard is that the regulatory impact statement miscalculated elements of the costs to small and medium-sized businesses and, as every day has gone by, we understand that more and more costs will be racked up and applied to Australian small and medium-sized businesses as a result of the government's approach. We were told that, in miscalculating those costs, it was in part because they were based on a few google searches, it seems. These searches were of some of the most curious and unusual businesses that you could seek to base an economic analysis upon.

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

Embarrassing!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed embarrassing, Senator Scarr. It's embarrassing and it might be funny that the government is relying upon shamans or dog-grooming services as an equation for the whole economy.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Magicians, dog-walkers.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Psychics or magicians—it might be funny if it weren't so serious in terms of the consequences of the government's legislation. The consequences of the government's legislation will be to see Australian businesses face costs and disruption—costs in terms of the regulatory impact, costs in terms of negotiating, disruption in terms of the increased strike action—and be forced to act in ways that are not analogous to the needs of their individual enterprise or business.

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

Jobs will be lost.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The consequences of those higher costs, higher strikes, more disruption will be, as Senator Duniam said, lost jobs. There will be fewer jobs in the Australian economy and higher costs for businesses. Contrary to what the government claims, it's not going to help productivity. It's going to hurt productivity when you've got businesses tied up in red tape and dealing with strikes. Productivity will go down and costs will go up. Will that help or hurt inflation? It will drive inflation and it will make a difficult situation, a real problem, even worse. The government's actions will make the problem worse. They should be listening to the Reserve Bank. They should be listening to the experts. They should be listening to any business across the country, not just as I've heard in this chamber this week but, remarkably, in the other place. When the Minister for Small Business was asked to name one small business—just one—who supported the government's extreme IR bills, guess what? She couldn't name even one—not even one.

As if the chaos from the hapless management of the industrials relations built by the government isn't bad enough, we've been exposed in recent days to the work of the Assistant Treasurer and the way he is conducting his negotiations on the financial accountability regime bill. He seems to be changing position on that bill on a daily basis and doing it all through the media. One day there are new fines, the next day those fines are being taken away. Where is the certainty for Australian business? Where is the certainty for Australian investors? What on earth is this government doing? Well, they're making these mistakes because of the undue haste and because they are dancing to the tune of their union masters. That's why these mistakes are happening. The IR bill is no doubt full of other mistakes that are yet to be exposed because of the rushed approach. The financial services bill is also being changed on a day-to-day basis because the government is dancing to the tune of others. It's trying to twist around to make sure it keeps the unions happy and the industry super funds happy. They're telling them to go harder, go faster on these reforms. But they're not doing their homework and so not getting it right, and as a consequence Australians are going to face higher costs, fewer jobs, a weaker economy. And we won't stand for it.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the week is ending as it started, with the Liberal-National coalition doing everything they can not to help Australian workers get a pay increase. It's the same strategy with which they started the week.

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

This is a secret, dirty, rotten plan—a secret, dirty, rotten deal with union bosses in this country.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like to stand up and make a contribution? No amount of slagging off the trade union movement—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson—

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

I'm just accepting Senator Wong's invitation.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not an invitation. I'm the one who gives the invitations.

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

Oh! Senator Wong, I thought you wanted me to talk about the secret, dirty, rotten deal that's hurting every employer in this country.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, please sit down. This is an open-ended debate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No amount of slagging off working people will get away from the fact that you stand in the way of wage increases for ordinary Australians.

I know; it's a dreadful thing, isn't it?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, do you have a point of order?

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

On direct relevance: I just want to point out the only one I'm slagging off is this government.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order. Please be seated. Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tactical genius over there! Yet again, we see this Liberal-National party, the dregs of government, doing the only thing they know how to unite on—that is, standing up against working people. That is the only thing these divided remnants of a hapless government can actually do together—stand up against working people. That's what you've consistently done all week. It's the one thing that unites you: 'We love a deliberate design feature of our economy being low wages, and we're going to fight really hard to hold on to it.' That is what has occurred all week and that is what is occurring now.

The part of the motion before the Senate that really demonstrates the motivation of those opposite is they want to defer debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just want proper scrutiny!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He says he just wants more time; he wants more scrutiny. Does anyone believe that those opposite, the party of WorkChoices, will ever change? I was here for the WorkChoices debate. And I see the same fervour in their eyes now. This is the thing that unites them best: 'How can we gang up against workers and how can we bash the trade union movement?' That is what unites you, and that is what this motion is all about.

Let's remember the bill they so desperately don't want to debate expressly prohibits sexual harassment, puts gender equity and job security at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making, bans pay secrecy clauses.

You say you care, Senator Henderson, about pay equity, but you're defending pay secrecy clauses.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Wong. Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

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

I was going to take a point of order that Senator Wong wasn't referring her comments through the chair, but she then, when I stood up, added 'Senator Henderson', so just to remind—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Wong.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've only got half an hour for this debate, and you're wasting time! Good on you!

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, you're not assisting.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very sensitive—so sensitive. You're very happy to dish it out but you don't like it when people call it out, do you? You dish it out across the chamber to the President but you don't like it when people call you out.

Those opposite say they care about pay equity. This bill seeks to deal with some of those pay equity issues by banning pay secrecy clauses and giving the Fair Work Commission the powers to deal with pay equity. This is the bill they're fighting so hard against. New limits on rolling contracts—another equity provision. There are all these aspects of the legislation that they do not wish to debate. They want the debate to be about just one thing, because they don't actually want to deal with the real issue: at its heart, this bill is about trying to make Australian workplaces fairer and get wages moving again. That is what this bill is about. You cannot join with that issue, can you, because, fundamentally, you don't agree with it. No matter how much debate, no matter how much so-called scrutiny, you are ideologically, historically and forever committed to opposing this bill. We all remember from the last election the dollar pay increase, and the way in which your then government responded. Australians remember that. What is clear from the way in which you have dealt with this debate on this bill is you haven't learnt the lesson.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens do not support the question before the chair. I do want to make some comments about the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 negotiations, but before I do I want to be abundantly clear that the Australian Greens certainly do not support the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 being referred to a committee for an inquiry that is both needless and designed only to delay. Neither do we accept that the management of the chamber this week has been chaotic. In fact, it has been very productive, and we genuinely hope that next week will be the same.

On the Financial Accountability Regime Bill, on Tuesday this week, at about six o'clock, Minister Jones and I met in his office and we made an agreement. That agreement was that the Greens would facilitate the passage this year of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 2) Bill 2022, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, and the Financial Accountability Regime Bill and its cognate bills. The condition on which that was agreed was that the government would support the Greens amendment to the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 to insert civil penalties for accountable people, including bank executives, for breaches of their accountability obligations. That would have been a great step forward.

Yesterday, Minister Jones and I met again in his office, and he informed me that the government was no longer prepared to honour that agreement. We all know what's happened here. Labor has cracked under pressure from the bank executives. Reneging on the agreement shows very clearly that Labor values the interests of bankers over the interests of customers. Minister Jones has learned very clearly what happens when you get in between a bank executive and a bag of money. He's learned that you get absolutely steamrolled, and that's what has happened to him this week. There is absolutely no doubt that Minister Jones and I had an agreement, and any claim that there was no agreement is false.

I can also inform the Senate that yesterday evening I wrote to Minister Jones offering a revised agreement in which the Australian Greens would facilitate the passage of the relevant bills this year on the basis that the government would support a revised amendment which would ensure that small and mutual banks and, importantly, executives of small and mutual banks are not unreasonably impacted. For clarity, this means that executives of small and mutual banks would not be subject to civil penalties for breaches of their accountability obligations. In other words, we would be going squarely after the top end of town, where this kind of reform is so desperately needed to send a clear message to the executives of the big banks in this country that their poor behaviour and their appalling culture, uncovered by a once-in-a-generation royal commission, will not be tolerated any longer. We hope the government is prepared to accept our revised offer, which we make in good faith, despite what has happened in the last 24 hours. We look forward to the government's response.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the Fair Work Act. We see an amazing bill coming through now involving a lot of parts—27 parts. Some are simply necessary tidying up; we support them. Some are worthy improvements; we support them. Some are big issues that are not thought through. Some are big issues that are thought through but appear to be hiding things. Some are designed deliberately, it appears, to confuse and to obfuscate. We need more time to scrutinise this. The government has said that this is about increasing pay. Rubbish! They have left out my Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022, which is fundamental to getting more pay for workers. We cannot add complexity to this already complex dinosaur—the Fair Work Act—without proper scrutiny. That's the only way to do this. I support the move to suspend standing orders, and we'll be supporting the motion.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also support the motion made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to suspend standing orders. In the first instance, I have to say: Senator McKim, I was not aware of the revelations that you have just provided to the Senate. A deal has allegedly been done between a government minister and yourself, and a deal has been broken. Seriously! Did the minister even have authority to do the deal with you, now begs the question. That minister should today at least have the decency to front the press and actually confirm whether or not a deal was done. In this place, let's be honest, if a deal is done, you stick with the deal. It would appear that Stephen Jones, the Assistant Treasurer, did not have the authority, Senator McKim, to do the deal with you. I don't know what the deal was. I may not even agree with the deal, but I have to say: the revelations that a deal was done demand that the Assistant Treasurer front the media today and give an explanation to the Australian people.

Why do I say that? Because this is a government that was elected on a basis of integrity and transparency. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has said, what this motion does is merely allow further scrutiny in relation to possibly the biggest industrial relations changes this country has seen for decades and decades. It doesn't ask for that scrutiny to be extended in an unreasonable time frame. In fact, what it says is basically, 'Give us the Christmas period to go out there and talk further to employers.' Because—and we all need to remember this—governments don't create jobs. Employers do. When you have every employer in the country standing up and saying, 'We agree with wage rises; we have nothing against wage rises, but this bill will not deliver wage rises,' I'd have thought you'd sit back for five minutes and just listen.

For the benefit of those in the gallery, this is the contempt with which the Albanese government treats businesses in Australia. To calculate costs for small business they have utilised a website called 'How much should I charge a consultant in Australia'. That sounds reasonable until you click on the link in the regulatory impact statement and the author of the article is described as 'a cross between a business strategist, a modern day spiritual healer and a self-development expert'. Benjamin J Harvey—and good on Benjamin J Harvey!—is:

… as comfortable working with Shamans to Strategists, Psychics to Sales Reps, Healers to Home Makers, Buddhists to Businessmen and Meditators to Mediators.

What does the government do? The government says, 'Sorry, it was a mistake,' and throws their own department under a bus. Interestingly, the figure of $175 per hour was actually the same figure that Benjamin J Harvey's website came up with. So I have to start wondering whether or not merely throwing the department under the bus was the right thing to do.

But it actually gets worse in terms of contempt for business. As we know, there is a fundamental mistake in the RIS in relation to the bargaining tax that medium sized businesses will actually pay. The government has miscalculated it by $5,000. And the bad news is that it isn't $5,000 less; it's not $70,000 that medium businesses will be paying. It actually now goes up to $80,000. Do you know what the relevant minister said in relation to that? On a $5,000 mistake, when it increases the cost for a business from 75 to 80—I kid you not—it is only a 'typo', a mere typo. So all those businesses that have 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 employees, I can tell you, your Christmas present from the left-wing Albanese government is the additional $5,000 that you will have to pay for the pleasure of being compelled to bargain. A bargaining tax of $5,000? I do not know where you are finding this $5,000 with every other cost that is being imposed on you. But the contempt that those opposite have to say that a $5,000 increase is a 'typo'— (Time expired)

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing symbolises more how lost this crowd are on industrial relations than Senator Cash. The former workplace relations minister, nobody is more responsible over on that side for a government that had the longest period of historically low wage growth in our history ever—ever! Since Federation, those guys opposite presided over the lowest period of wage growth in our history and the lowest period of productivity growth in our history. Why? Because they see industrial relations and workplace reform for one thing: they can't stand the union movement. That is all they care about. They are not interested in anything more. It is a one-eyed, prejudiced, blinkered, ideological view about Australian workplaces that can only see one thing. And when there is a little bit of legislation put in front of them—moderate sensible, practical, straightforward internationally comparable—what are they doing? I will tell you what they are doing.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order in relation to the assistant minister clearly misleading the chamber. If he thinks that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. Senator Cash, please be seated.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know what? The international evidence demonstrates this. What does this legislation lead to? Multi-employer bargaining leads to more employment. It leads to lower unemployment. It leads to better jobs. It leads to higher wages. It leads to higher productivity. It leads to less gender inequality. But you guys opposite are not remotely interested in any of that. I tell you what, your relationship with the concept of productivity is so broken. What you have here is a government that is doing what it said it would do—that is, legislating its agenda. The only thing that you are doing is trying to break the productivity of this parliament because what is going on does not suit your political timetable. That is what this is really about. What you, you and you want is months and months and months to run a dishonest partisan political scare campaign in Australian workplaces to frighten ordinary small-business owners out there. These propositions are very straightforward, very simple to understand. I will give you an example of how simple to understand they are. There is an outfit called the OECD. You lot opposite may have heard of it. It is run by a fellow who used to loaf around over here trying to keep Australian wages down. That is what former Senator Cormann did; he tried to keep Australian wages down. The outfit he leads, one of the most respected economic analysis outfits in the world, makes the proposition very simple. It says multi-employer bargaining is a cornerstone industrial relations institution in 18 out of 26 OECD countries. It is a cornerstone not just of their industrial relations system but of their macro-economic system—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I mean, honestly. Have a go!

It's a cornerstone of their economic systems. It's a cornerstone of their productivity systems. What it leads to is higher employment, lower unemployment, more jobs, good jobs and more cooperation in workplaces over issues like skills. It leads to higher productivity. It leads to lower gender inequality. Which bit of that don't you lot want to have? The fact is: the modern Liberal Party have lost their way on productivity. You've lost your way on the issues that matter for Australian businesses and Australian workers. Nothing represents that more than the miserable stunt that you lot have engaged in today.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we find out today is that federal Labor are bringing in a payroll tax at a federal level on small businesses. They're going to charge small businesses tens of thousands of dollars—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, time has expired for this debate.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got about two minutes.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Can I have some order!

Can you sit down, Senator McGrath? You are really pushing the boundaries here.

It is unacceptable behaviour, and I am about to address it. Senator McGrath, that was completely out of order. I'm not going to give you the call. I'm going to give the call to Senator Sheldon for the last two minutes.

The Deputy:

I sat you down because of your behaviour.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the thing: they don't want to hear from small business. If they had actually read the report into this bill, they would have seen that small business—HVAC small-business operators—said they want multi-employer bargaining, because they want productivity increased. They want there to be a better opportunity to build wages, to turn around and share the opportunity for productivity. That is the sort of answer that we want to build this country—wages go up, productivity goes up. These are opportunities that make a change for everybody. This will mean wages improve and productivity improves. But what have the opposition constantly been about? Look at Senator Birmingham. On Insiders, he said that we should have a decrease in wages, because he wants the same system to apply. That's what they're about. They want wages suppressed. Look at Angus Taylor yesterday on the ABC. He's declaring individual contracts as the best way to go. They want to go back to Work Choices. The difference is: they've allowed Work Choices to apply right now because they've done nothing—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sheldon.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to suspend standing orders be agreed to.