Tuesday, 31 October 2023

Federal employment legislation

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:34): (550) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Industrial Relations. On 20 October the Victorian government filed a submission with the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the Albanese government’s Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023. The legislation as proposed would inhibit the use of casual employees, independent contractors and labour hire by employers all while giving stronger rights to trade unions and threatening to throw business owners in jail. The Victorian government’s submission to the Senate inquiry claims that Victoria – not merely the Victorian government – is strongly supportive of the Commonwealth’s bill. This is a bold claim by the government and one that is irreconcilable with public advocacy of the Victorian business community. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, for instance, opposes the legislative changes and argues that they will drive up the cost of living and unfairly impact small businesses at a time when they can least afford it.

Indeed the legislation first proposed by the Albanese government, apparently to the delight of their mates in Spring Street, would harm productivity, wage growth, job creation and the flexibility of the labour market. Today, however, we hear from media briefings and direct dealings with some employer groups that Minister Burke may be having second thoughts. For the sake of thousands of small businesses in my electorate, I truly hope that is so, but this is a bill which fundamentally threatens radical change to current industrial relations law.

In advice released by the Business Council of Australia, Stuart Wood AM KC, one of the nation’s pre-eminent industrial relations barristers, warned that it would:

… close down casual employment per se for many, even though it’s a form of employment enjoyed by a significant and largely stable portion (23 per cent) of Australian workers.

Has the bill actually been profoundly altered, or is this a political operation by federal Labor to split opposition and distract from the business community’s growing realisation of the threat it poses? Last week even the Premier of Western Australia wrote to the Prime Minister to plead for reconsideration of the legislation because of its potentially destructive impact on the mining industry. Yet just 11 days ago the Allan government produced a cringeworthy, cheerleading submission for this business-busting bill, probably payback for an increasingly desperate trade union movement facing historic lows in membership. So the question arises: are these changes, so far only briefed vaguely to the media, real or cosmetic? I ask the minister to provide real detail and explain if the Victorian government still supports this assault on employment.

The PRESIDENT: Can I suggest it may not be an appropriate action but for the minister to advocate to their federal counterpart to reconsider introducing the bill or something like that. Would that suffice?

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you, President. I am open to your suggestion, but we need the minister to provide the detail as to how this bill will affect employment in Victoria, obviously.

The PRESIDENT: Given it is a federal bill –

Bev McARTHUR: But the state government have put a submission to the inquiry, so they are intimately involved in the whole operation.

The PRESIDENT: I do not know if that is the case – and when I say I do not know, that is me saying I do not know if that is the case – but I would suggest that when it comes to a piece of federal legislation or anything that is in the remit of the federal government, probably a good action for an adjournment would be for the Victorian minister to advocate to their counterpart to do or not do something.

Bev McARTHUR: Well, President, I am more than happy to suggest that the minister advocate that Victoria does not support this bill and that they advocate on behalf of Victorian employees and employers.

The PRESIDENT: Advocate to their federal counterpart – I am happy with that.