|
representatives vote 2022-11-10#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-11-17 14:21:43
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail- Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Mackellar MP amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Sophie Scamps</p><p>I move amendments (1) to (13), as circulated in my name, together:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-10.49.1) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mackellar/sophie_scamps) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Dr Scamps [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-11-10.49.1):
- > *I have moved these amendments to protect small businesses and to reduce the risk that they will be impacted unnecessarily. I do this by removing the uncertainty associated with the common-interest test and raising the bar in regard to the public interest test. Importantly, I seek to remove part 3, the abolishment of the ABCC, which has been a political football with each change of government. I also seek to protect small business by updating and clarifying the common-interest test and also flipping the public interest test to be defined as 'in the public interest', not merely 'contrary to the public interest'. Finally, I move to amend the definition of the small business exemption to be based on 15 full-time-equivalent employees, not merely employees under the current definition of small business.*
<p class="italic">(1)      Clause 2, page 2 (table items 6, 7 and 8), omit the table items.</p><p class="italic">[Australian Building and Construction Commission]</p><p class="italic">(2)      Schedule 1, Part 3, page 41 (line 1) to page 79 (line 22), omit the Part.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[Australian Building and Construction Commission]</i></p><p class="italic">(3)      Schedule 1, item 611, page 197 (lines 15 and 16), omit subparagraph 243(1)(b)(ii), substitute:</p><p class="italic">  (ii)   the history of bargaining of each of the relevant employers, including whether they have previously bargained together; and</p><p class="italic">  (iia)   the interests that the relevant employers have in common, and the extent to which those interests are relevant to whether they should be permitted to bargain together; and</p><p class="italic">  (iib)   whether the relevant employers are governed by a common regulatory regime; and</p><p class="italic">  (iic)   whether it would be more appropriate for each of the relevant employers to make a separate enterprise agreement with its employees; and</p><p class="italic">  (iid)   the extent to which the relevant employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively; and</p><p class="italic"> <i>[common interests]</i></p><p class="italic">(4)      Schedule 1, item 611, page 197 (lines 27 to 35), omit subsection 243(2).</p><p class="italic"> <i>[common interests]</i></p><p class="italic">(5)      Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (lines 16 to 18), omit subparagraph 216DC(1)(b)(i), substitute:</p><p class="italic">  (i)   the history of bargaining of each of the relevant employers, including whether they have previously bargained together;</p><p class="italic">  (ia)   the interests that the relevant employers have in common, and the extent to which those interests are relevant to whether they should be permitted to bargain together;</p><p class="italic">  (ib)   whether the relevant employers are governed by a common regulatory regime;</p><p class="italic">  (ic)   whether it would be more appropriate for each of the relevant employers to make a separate enterprise agreement with its employees;</p><p class="italic">  (id)   the extent to which the relevant employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively;</p><p class="italic"> <i>[common interests]</i></p><p class="italic">(6)      Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (line 19), omit “not contrary to”, substitute “in”.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[public interest]</i></p><p class="italic">(7)      Schedule 1, item 629, page 204 (lines 29 and 30), omit “is not a small business employer”, substitute “employs more than 15 full-time equivalent employees”.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[small business]</i></p><p class="italic">(8)      Schedule 1, item 629, page 205 (lines 3 to 11), omit subsection 216DC(2).</p><p class="italic"> <i>[common interests]</i></p><p class="italic">(9)      Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 23), omit “not contrary to”, substitute “in”.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[public interest]</i></p><p class="italic">(10)   Schedule 1, item 634, page 208 (line 27), omit “is not a small business employer”, substitute “employs more than 15 full-time equivalent employees”.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[small business]</i></p><p class="italic">(11)   Schedule 1, item 634, page 209 (lines 12 to 16), omit paragraphs (3C)(a) to (c), substitute:</p><p class="italic">  (a)   the history of bargaining of each of the relevant employers, including whether they have previously bargained together;</p><p class="italic">  (b)   the interests that the relevant employers have in common, and the extent to which those interests are relevant to whether they should be permitted to bargain together;</p><p class="italic">  (c)   whether the relevant employers are governed by a common regulatory regime;</p><p class="italic">  (d)   whether it would be more appropriate for each of the relevant employers to make a separate enterprise agreement with its employees;</p><p class="italic">  (e)   the extent to which the relevant employers operate collaboratively rather than competitively.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[common interests]</i></p><p class="italic">(12)   Schedule 1, item 639, page 211 (line 32), omit “is not a small business employer”, substitute “employs more than 15 full-time equivalent employees”.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[small business]</i></p><p class="italic">(13)   Schedule 1, item 649, page 223 (line 29), omit “not contrary to”, substitute “in”.</p><p class="italic"> <i>[public interest]</i></p><p>There has been much talk from the government of the mandate it has been given by the people of Australia to support the introduction and passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. I agree wholeheartedly that the people of Australia did give a mandate for wage growth, especially in the long-undervalued and largely feminised care sectors. And I wholeheartedly agree with the need for urgent reforms to ensure that there is equal pay for equal work. However, I too have been given a mandate, by the people of Mackellar, to listen to them and to represent them on issues that matter to them and to make a difference to their lives. This includes a strong mandate to support the small-business owners in Mackellar. Small business is the backbone of the Mackellar electorate, with over 35,000 small businesses located there. The results of our recent survey of businesses showed that 84 per cent identified red tape and compliance as their top issue of concern.</p><p>I have also heard loud and clear from those in the construction industry, including my local Master Builders Association, who value the role of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and are alarmed at its abolition. In fact, almost nine per cent—8½ thousand people—working in Mackellar work in the building and construction sector. This includes 3,500 businesses, of which 91 per cent are small businesses. This is comparatively high even compared with similar electorates in my area of Sydney. I also have a mandate from the majority of my electorate to do politics differently, and that is to ensure proper process, consultation and consensus building.</p><p>The problem I have with the omnibus nature of the fair work legislation amendment is that many of these excellent policies are bundled up with the more-controversial ones, and this has created a Sophie's choice when it comes to voting. As with many of my crossbench colleagues, I too have serious concerns at the consequences this legislation will have on small business. So I have moved these amendments to protect small businesses and to reduce the risk that they will be impacted unnecessarily. I do this by removing the uncertainty associated with the common-interest test and raising the bar in regard to the public interest test. Importantly, I seek to remove part 3, the abolishment of the ABCC, which has been a political football with each change of government. I also seek to protect small business by updating and clarifying the common-interest test and also flipping the public interest test to be defined as 'in the public interest', not merely 'contrary to the public interest'. Finally, I move to amend the definition of the small business exemption to be based on 15 full-time-equivalent employees, not merely employees under the current definition of small business. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I thank the member for Mackellar both for the contribution in the debate and the conversations that have happened back and forth between my office and her own in the lead-up to this debate.</p><p>I want to deal in some detail with one of the issues that has been raised. The government won't be supporting the amendment. I've referred a few times now to the 'small business' definition issue and how we're wanting to handle that. And we've had many opportunities for debate where I think I've probably made clear the government's views on the ABCC, but am very mindful of what the member for Mackellar said there about the statistics in terms of the impact on her electorate of the construction industry. I can completely respect why the issue is being raised through this amendment.</p><p>I want to deal in some detail with an issue that has come up a lot in the media, but I think this is the first time it's been raised in the House. The issue is whether or not we ought to have detailed criteria for the common interest test. In particular, the issue is often raised—and it's part of the amendment—as to whether we should include a concept that businesses must be operating collaboratively, not competitively, because it's here that there is a policy decision that the government is taking quite deliberately and I want to be able to explain it. There are circumstances where businesses are in competition where we do want multi-employer bargaining to apply, and that is different to how the single interest stream or common interest stream runs at the moment.</p><p>I'll give a simple example. When the race to the bottom on wages is, effectively, the nature of the competition, that's not a form of competition that we want to encourage, even though those businesses might be operating competitively. The simplest example I can give would be the example of cleaning companies. It has been the case that a good enterprise agreement is negotiated with a good employer. They get their rates of pay for their workforce improved on the award, and they get some flexibility in return. Then they simply get undercut only on wages—not on quality of service or anything else. As a result, they lose their contract and we end up back where we started. The people who had better wages don't have a job, and the same work is being done with similar equipment in a similar way, and we failed to get wages off the floor of the award.</p><p>So in those circumstances, we do want it to be possible for good employers to make sure that, on everything else, competition still happens—in terms of the quality of the service, the quality of the equipment, and the ingenuity of the different businesses and of the different brands and the ways that businesses put themselves out to the public. But there are circumstances where the nature of the competition is a race to the bottom on wages, and that is one of the things we want to directly address.</p><p>This amendment would reflect language that's currently in the act, but we're quite deliberately wanting to change that. I thank the member for Mackellar not only for bringing the issue forward but also for giving me the opportunity to provide that further explanation to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Kate Chaney</p><p>I rise to speak in support of those amendments. I want to take up a statement that the minister made then about wanting to create a level playing field for businesses that are in competition. My concern is that the flipside could also be true. Sometimes businesses do compete on wages and they are competing for talent by offering better wages. The concern is that the unintended consequence here is that it actually prevents that sort of competition if one competitor can be dragged into a bargain with its competitor and is no longer able to compete by offering better terms and conditions to those employees. That is the sort of unintended consequence that I am concerned about and that my electorate is concerned about that requires greater consideration of the issues and of what might come out of the legislation, as evidenced by the numerous amendments that have been put by the government and other sides that shows that, really, we need to take some time to think about this. I'd just put that to the minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>By way of a very quick clarification, there's nothing in the legislation before us or in the amendments before us that would turn agreements into a ceiling on wages. Many businesses out there now, particularly at a time of labour shortage, are paying above agreement or award rates. The capacity to do that is unaffected, whether employees are on an award, on an enterprise agreement or on a multi-employer agreement.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|