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

I move amendment (3) on sheet 5817:

(3)    Schedule 5, item 2, page 58 (line 23), after “employment”, insert “, on business profitability”.

This amendment deals with the issue of award modernisation and the impact of award modernisation on business profitability. As we all know, business profitability is a very important factor in the capacity of businesses to employ people. Without profitable businesses they do not have the capacity to employ. This amendment seeks to provide an additional factor—the likely effects on business profitability—that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must take into account when making a modern award. This amendment builds on the existing factors that were amended as part of the third reading in the House of Representatives. The AIRC would be able to hear submissions from industry about the likely effects on profitability for the sector to which a modern award will apply. After hearing submissions, the AIRC must have regard to any evidence on this factor in the same manner as the other factors in this section and then make a new award. This will ensure that certain sectors that have unique working conditions may have an opportunity to give evidence about profitability to the AIRC and will ensure that the AIRC has regard to such evidence when making a modern award.

There is no doubt that this matter has now finally mugged the government, as a result of which the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations wrote to the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 29 May 2009 and invited the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to consider the fact that data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that cafes, restaurants and catering services are characterised by comparatively low profit margins and high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses. My colleague Senator Fisher asked a very good question of the minister as to what was unique about restaurants and caterers as opposed to a number of other sectors in the economy. Other sectors in the economy that spring to mind that do not have a high profitability factor, such as aged care, horticulture et cetera, all fit into that category.

We now know that award modernisation will do untold damage to the restaurant and catering sector, and that is why the minister herself was finally moved to write to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. In the horticultural sector, to seek to place a 20 per cent to 30 per cent loading on those workers who pick fruit on a Saturday or a Sunday is, with respect, an indication that this government has no idea whatsoever how the rural and regional areas of this country operate. It has no idea about the needs and plight of the horticultural and agricultural sectors in this country. God determines when fruit ripens on trees and berry bushes, not Ms Gillard. If fruit has to be picked on a Sunday, it has to be picked, whether you like it or not, and imposing a 30 per cent loading for that upon the farmer, upon the horticulturalist, will make the enterprise unprofitable. There is overwhelming evidence from the stone fruit growers in my own home state and those all around Australia. The berry fruit growers in my home state have made similar representations, and I note Senator Colbeck, my colleague from Tasmania, acknowledging that by nodding his head. I hope he is not falling asleep but in fact agreeing with me. It is reassuring that he is agreeing with me, as I was sure that he would.

To be serious, this is an issue of great concern to our rural communities and all the small businesses that are part and parcel of the rural and regional fabric of Australia. You can keep on going with this approach of one size fits all. It is going to be imposed, whether we like it or not, but can I simply say that the impact of increased wages in this manner, completely unrelated to productivity, will have a huge impact on the farmers of this country, on the aged care facilities of this country and on the restaurants and caterers of this country.

It will also have an impact on the carers of this country. In my home state of Tasmania there is an organisation called CBS South. It looks after people in their homes. They had in their newsletter of February 2009 this comment:

The election of the Rudd Labor Government brought an effective end to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). From April 2009 our support workers will mostly work under the Community Services Award.

They then outlined the problems that that would have. Here is a not-for-profit organisation delivering fantastic services, but guess who funds them. It is largely the Australian government. There are extra wages costs but—hello—has the Australian government come up with extra funding for them? No. As a result services will need to be cut, so those people who are reliant on those services will become the victims of award modernisation. Well done and congratulations. If that is what Labor thinks it is doing by way of social justice, so be it, but there are flow-on consequences.

I have already outlined the rural and regional communities and the horticulture sector, and the restaurants and caterers have already made their case exceptionally well—they have required Miss Gillard to change her position. We believe that it makes good sense, in particular in this period of increased unemployment courtesy of the Rudd Labor government, to seek to minimise the impact of the global financial crisis on the unemployment levels in this country. If business profitability is impacted as outlined by these various sectors, there is no doubt, as sure as night follows day, that the employment levels will drop in these sectors. There will be only one party to blame for that: the Australian Labor Party and those who do not support this amendment to award modernisation.