Ai Group’s Head of National Workplace Relations Policy, Brent Ferguson and Director, Workplace Relations Policy, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Nicola Street, today appeared before the Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022.
Below is the prepared statement delivered to the hearing at 4PM this afternoon:
The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission (available via this link) to this inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 (Bill).
For context, I am the Head of National Workplace Relations Policy for Ai Group (Brent Ferguson). Appearing with me is Nicola Street, Director of Workplace Relations Policy, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
Ai Group has filed a detailed submission in accordance with the timetable provided by the Committee. It stretches to over 80 pages in length.
We won’t traverse that material, but we do wish to amplify some of our overarching concerns about the Bill, before addressing any questions that the Committee has.
Before turning to such matters, we want to reiterate our concerns about the inadequacy of the timeframe that has been afforded for this inquiry.
The Bill would make profound changes to a large number of provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), including sweeping changes to Australia’s enterprise bargaining laws.
Given the breadth of the proposed changes, it is vital that there is time for the impacts of the Bill to be thoroughly analysed and understood by both businesses and others within the community. The truncated timetable for this inquiry does not provide a sufficient opportunity for such analysis to be undertaken.
In turn, this truncated timetable necessarily undermines the role that this Parliamentary Committee can play in properly scrutinizing the Bill and making recommendations to improve it.
This is a significant issue because Australia’s workplace relations system is of critical importance to both our economy and to our community.
The changes that are proposed by the Bill would make fundamental alterations to elements of the architecture of Australia’s workplace relations system that won’t just affect how the country navigates the economic circumstances of the moment, which on any reasonable assessment are very challenging for both business and individuals, but also the extent to which it sets the country up for prosperity in the years ahead.
The changes proposed by the Bill, particularly the contentious and complicated changes to our bargaining laws, shouldn’t be rushed.
I will turn to our submissions more squarely.
Ai Group has sought to assist the Committee by providing analysis of all of the key sections of the Bill.
This analysis identifies a range of problems and deficiencies. This includes identifying provisions that we say need to be fundamentally reconsidered or abandoned.
Where possible, we have also sought to constructively identify amendments that would improve the workability and fairness of the Bill.
Ai Group urges the Committee to carefully consider the detail of what we have advanced.
We do however want to emphasis that our most strident concerns relate to the changes to the bargaining system. The changes proposed are deeply flawed.
Our concerns in this regard relate to the problematic expansion of access to multi-employer agreements and the associated expanded ability for unions to co-ordinate widespread industrial action in support of those agreements; as well as the proposed greatly expanded capacity for the Commission to arbitrate in the context of bargaining disputes to directly set terms and conditions under workplace agreements.
As we have set out in our submission, we have real concerns that the changes would result in foreseeable harm to productivity, investment and jobs. It is essential that these provisions are substantially amended.
Without downplaying our broader concerns, we would emphasize that the proposed single interest bargaining stream is particularly problematic.
The criteria for access to that stream is far too loose and, frankly, unclear. It would no doubt be used by unions to achieve industry sector agreements in a wide range of areas. The proposed amendments related to this stream should be abandoned.
We are also particularly concerned about the provisions in the Bill which deal with the interaction between single interest or supported bargaining agreements and single enterprise agreements.
Despite the recent amendments to the Bill, it is entirely foreseeable that employers and employees will be able to be forced into multi-employer bargaining agreements and then, once covered by such agreements, it will be virtually impossible for such employers to bargain directly with their employees again.
Ultimately, if implemented, the proposed changes would undermine our system’s focus on encouraging the setting of terms and conditions at the enterprise level. That is a change that would take us back decades.
Acknowledgement of improvements to the system contained within the Bill
The real problem with the enterprise bargaining system, and key barrier to it being more widely used, is the ‘minefield’ of technicalities that the enterprise bargaining approval process has become, and the problems with the way the BOOT has been applied. It is not the absence of a more widely accessible multi-employer bargaining system.
Some of these problems with the overly complicated current system would be meaningfully addressed by the Bill. It will make tangible improvements in this regard.
The Bill does however fail to address some of the known problems with the current regime and, as presently framed, also creates some new problems. We have addressed these matters in our submission, but we can elaborate on them if it is of assistance.
In short however, we ultimately contend that the proposed bargaining related reforms need major reconsideration, not just mere tinkering at the edges.
Check against delivery
Media enquiries
Tony Melville – 0419 190 347
