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

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (16) and (21) to (28) on sheet 1779 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2, 3 and 4), omit the table items.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 6, 7 and 8), omit the table items.

(3) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 21), omit the table item.

(4) Clause 2, page 4 (table item 24), omit the table item.

(5) Clause 2, pages 4 and 5 (table item 27), omit the table item.

(6) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 28), omit the table item.

(7) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 29), omit the table item.

(8) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 30), omit the table item.

(9) Clause 2, page 5 (table item 34), omit the table item.

(10) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 7 (line 2) to page 33 (line 20), to be opposed.

(11) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 42 (line 1) to page 80 (line 22), to be opposed.

(12) Schedule 1, Part 15, page 168 (lines 1 to 26), to be opposed.

(13) Schedule 1, Part 18, page 181 (line 1) to page 187 (line 22), to be opposed.

(14) Schedule 1, Division 3 of Part 19, page 192 (line 15) to page 193 (line 19), to be opposed.

(15) Schedule 1, Part 20, page 197 (line 1) to page 211 (line 17), to be opposed.

(16) Schedule 1, Part 21, page 212 (line 1) to page 228 (line 16), to be opposed.

(21) Schedule 1, Part 22, page 229 (line 1) to page 231 (line 29), to be opposed.

(22) Schedule 1, Part 23, page 232 (line 1) to page 237 (line 25), to be opposed.

(23) Schedule 1, item 660, page 251 (line 19) to page 252 (line 7), Division 2 to be opposed.

(24) Schedule 1, item 660, page 257 (line 21) to page 258 (line 9), Division 14 to be opposed.

(25) Schedule 1, item 660, page 258 (lines 28 to 31), omit subclause 72(5).

(26) Schedule 1, item 660, page 259 (line 11) to page 262 (line 11), Divisions 16 and 17 to be opposed.

(27) Schedule 1, item 660, page 263 (after line 15), at the end of Part 13, add:

Division 20 — Review of operation of amendments

85 Revie w of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 1 to the amending Act to be conducted by an independent expert as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the day the amending Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) The person who conducts the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister

(28) Schedule 1, Division 2 of Part 26, page 263 (line 16) to page 265 (line 2), to be opposed.

These amendments really do go to what is the fundamental issue before the chamber. That is, this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill that has not been properly scrutinised by this Senate chamber. It is a bill where unfortunately the job creators of the country stand united and say it will not have its desired effect, that it will only result in increased strike action and less jobs.

In the first instance, this amendment will overturn the provisions in the bill that abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. Today, in the Senate, as I questioned the minister in relation to the effect of the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and whether or not the Fair Work Ombudsman would have the capacity to undertake the same duties as the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the answer was clearly no. So why do we move this amendment? Because the building and construction industry in Australia is fundamental to the functioning of our economy. It contributes approximately nine per cent of GDP, it accounts for more than 1.5 million employees in Australia and there are over 400,000 small businesses around Australia that rely on the building and constructions sector.

Ultimately, why am I most worried about the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission? That is because, shortly, the workers across Australia in the Building and Construction Commission will be handed over on a silver platter to John Setka and the most militant union in Australia. So, whilst, yes, those on the other side do have an ideological objection to the Australian Building and Construction Commission, I have to say he is already out there in South Australia and Adelaide flexing his muscles. Builders in Adelaide are very, very worried. I think the fact that the majority of the inspectors in the Fair Work Ombudsman are actually female and there doesn't appear to have been anything done to prepare them for the world of John Setka is a very, very disturbing fact. The fact is you have the EY report that clearly states that the economic impact of the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, between now and 2030, will be around $47.5 billion. At the moment in the economy there are higher interest rates and higher inflation, higher unemployment and electricity prices that are soaring. Put into that the effect of this bill on the building and construction sector and ultimately the Australian economy and, I have to say, you have a trainwreck ready and waiting to happen.

In relation to the provisions to abolish the section in relation to multi-employer bargaining, when the employers in Australia stand up united—the BCA, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, COSBOA, the MCA and the manufacturers as we heard today from Senator Henderson—they represent the job creators in this country. What they are saying to the Australian Labor Party is that we actually are telling her, as the people who represent the job creators in this country, that this will not have the desired effect. They make it very clear that we all want to see higher wages in Australia. That is not up for debate. But they want a framework in which they can operate and actually deliver the higher wages, a design move to deliberately move away from the primacy of enterprise bargaining—bargaining at an enterprise level, which even Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard realised is the essence of the employment relationship. Why? Because between the employer and the employee, based on the nature of the enterprise itself, you can negotiate terms and conditions that are a win-win for both parties.

Yet, when this bill passes, if you have 20 or more employees in your business in Australia you could actually be, against your will, compelled, roped into—use whatever words you want—multi-employer bargaining. I see Senator Watt, who I put all those questions to, is out there telling people we've been wasting time actually examining this bill in the Senate chamber. It's ironic. Maybe Senator Watt doesn't know what he was elected here to do, but the last time I checked, when I flip open any book about the Australian Senate I'm pretty sure it says 'the house of review'—apparently, according to Senator Watt, we don't have a role in reviewing legislation.

We actually take our role very seriously. The questions I put to minister after minister after minister were actually from employers and employees from around Australia, asking merely for some guidance in relation to the common-interest test: if we put this, this and this together, does that mean we have a common interest? 'That's a matter for the Fair Work Commission.' No guidance can be given to the employers in Australia as to whether they will or won't be roped into employer bargaining.

We've also heard that there is a possibility that a business with 21 employees could actually be negotiating with a business with 200 employees. I'm not quite sure how that works, because I'm pretty sure the business with the 200 employees probably does have an employee called the human resources department, and for the business with the 21 employees, I'm pretty sure the human resources department would be the owner of the business. The government's regulatory impact statement itself says that the owner of the business of the person they actually nominate will spend 4.6 hours per day. I put to the department, 'Where do you think they're going to find this 4.6 hours per day?' Is it during their working hours, so they actually lose profit, or is it after they finish work for the day, do the books, make sure the employees are okay, go home and make sure the kids are okay, look at their watch and say, 'Holy shit, it's midnight and I've got to be up at 5 am—Oh my God: 4.6 more hours so I can actually negotiate and bargain with a business. It bears no resemblance to mine, but apparently it has a common interest.' I don't' know—you're in the same shopping centre, you're in the same suburb, I don't know. Certainly the ministers couldn't tell me, because, again, that's up to the Fair Work Commission. Moving away from the primacy of enterprise bargaining to a centralised wage-fixing scheme is, as Senator Hanson quite frankly stated today, only going to end in tears.

The amendments in relation to the common-interest test will ensure that the requirement for the common interest is met only if it is in the public interest. Why do I say that? People say, 'Well, hey, hold on: it already says "in the public interest" in the act. Ah, but the drafters are very tricky little drafters here. They have actually lowered the bar so the test is that it's not contrary to the public interest.

The Senate transcript was published up to 20:00. The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.