Parliament Updates

10 November 2022

I move amendments (1) to (7), as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 597, page 194 (line 29), at the end of subsection 216BA(3), add:

; or (c) the employer's productivity will be adversely affected by the agreement.

(2) Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (lines 29 and 30), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs more than 50 full-time equivalent employees".

(3) Schedule 1, item 629, page 205 (line 2), at the end of paragraph 216DC(1)(e), add:

; and (iv) the employer's productivity will not be adversely affected by the agreement.

(4) Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 27), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs more than 50 full-time equivalent employees".

(5) Schedule 1, item 634, page 209 (line 16), at the end of subsection 249(3C), add:

; (d) the economic circumstances of the employers' enterprises;

(e) the relative size and scope of the employers' enterprises;

(f) the extent to which the employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively.

(6) Schedule 1, item 634, page 209 (after line 22), after subsection 249(3D), insert:

Public interest test

(3E) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(f), the FWC may have regard to:

(a) the need to achieve productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining; and

(b) the need to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and provision for consumer protection.

(7) Schedule 1, item 639, page 211 (line 32), omit "is not a small business employer", substitute "employs more than 50 full-time equivalent employees".

These amendments focus on tightening up the legislation to ensure that the impacts on business productivity and competitiveness of businesses—

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. There is far too much noise. Members should leave the chamber quickly and quietly so the member for Warringah can be heard in silence.

Ms STEGGALL: It's very interesting to see the members of government walking out during the consideration in detail stage of very important legislation.

Ho nourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms STEGGALL: When they were in opposition, they complained about the coalition doing it. But it goes to show that, as soon as it changes, the same behaviour applies.

The SPEAKER: The member for Warringah will return to the amendments.

Ms STEGGALL: The unintended consequences of this legislation could have incredibly negative impacts on small businesses in my electorate, and they are still recovering from the impacts of COVID-19. It is misleading to the Australian public to claim that this will get wages moving, when there are going to be months of delay and negotiation—complex processes—and the winners will be the unions and the lawyers; it will not be the workers. It is disingenuous of the government to claim that this legislation will assist feminised industries, when many small businesses are run by women. They will be the first to suffer when this legislation brings an absolute stalemate to sectors like child care.

In Warringah, there are at least 370 businesses that would be able to engage in or be compelled to engage in multi-employer bargaining under the current definition of a 'small business', having less than 15 employees. The added complexity of being compelled to engage in the multi-employer bargaining process will put fear into many business owners. They are struggling to keep their heads above water, still reeling from the impacts of COVID-19 and increasing inflation.

Productivity impacts are dealt with in amendments (1) to (3). They deal with the potential impacts on the productivity—

Mr Tudge interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Aston will cease interjecting.

Ms STEGGALL: Amendments (1) to (3) deal with potential impacts on the productivity of businesses being roped into multi-employer bargaining after it has been completed. They haven't even been part of the negotiations, and the bill currently allows an employee representative—the union—to join an employer to a multiparty EBA after the conclusion of the agreement. The Fair Work Commission should consider the potential impact on the productivity of a business as a result of being compelled to sign onto the EBA. This is a straightforward amendment that should not be objected to by the government.

The public interest test is amendment (6). Again, the amendment deals with the potential effects on productivity and competition. The bill as currently drafted requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so before making a single-interest authorisation. The problem is that the drafting does not specify what would be contrary to the public interest. There is, therefore, no guarantee that the Fair Work Commission would take into account the benefits to productivity, competition and consumer protection that come from enterprise-level collective bargaining. The proposed amendment would require the Fair Work Commission to take into account the need to achieve productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining and the need to enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition and fair trading and the provision of consumer protections.

Amendment (5) deals with common interest. In the single-interest stream, the common interest test in the current bill is very loosely defined and could have the effect of lessening competition by obliging smaller competitors to agree to multi-employer agreements with much larger businesses, with the potential for the smaller competitors to simply be priced out of the market. My proposed amendments would oblige the Fair Work Commission to take into account the economic circumstances and the relative sizes and scope of the employers' enterprises, as well as the extent to which the employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively, when determining whether the employers have a common interest.

Of course, we've heard much today of the small business definition. The bill currently exempts businesses with fewer than 15 employees from being forced into single-interest employer bargaining. That figure is ridiculous. Many businesses with up to 50 employees would be unable to compete with large businesses who could afford to absorb the extra cost. They will go to the wall. What the amendment proposes is that it be at 50 full-time equivalent. At the very least, the government is saying it will consider it, and there is dispute on this number.

Everyone in this place goes to their communities saying they support small business, yet here we are with legislation that will make it incredibly difficult for small business owners. I think this is really problematic. It does not have social licence. (Time expired)