Response to the Fair Work Legislation amendments
February 8, 2024
The primary objects of the Fair Work Act speak of providing a framework of workplace relations laws that are fair to working Australians, are flexible for business and promote productivity and economic growth for Australia’s future economic prosperity. The current proposed amendments provide none of the above. This is absurd.
Indeed, it seems those objects have been given no consideration at all in the legislative or parliamentary process. The over regulation of the workplace, introducing vague and ill-defined terms (such as ‘employee-like’), and putting in place more restrictions on employers in bargaining will not be flexible for business or productivity enhancing. The opposite outcome is inevitable.
Beyond introducing vague terms, the amendments seeks to add further confusion and anxiety by altering well understood definitions such as “casual employee”. The intent behind changing this definition is to restrict the choice available to employees and their employers who may prefer the casual loading rate, flexibility or other benefits associated with casual work. It is to undermine the freedom of contract between employees and employers that lead to more beneficial outcomes for both cohorts.
Further it will be medium and small employers and their employees that will most suffer. Large employers will adjust, add to their prices within Australia and to overseas customers and over time, as the environment becomes more antipathetic to business, move operations offshore. These are options that are generally not available to medium and small employers. Their options are to attempt to comply with regulation, sifting through hundreds of pages of detailed, prescriptive and ill thought out requirements policed by a trade union movement that has no interest in employer flexibility or productivity. The additional costs required to maintain compliance with excessive administrative requirements will place a further pressure on small business. Squeezing out small business in the market, will only lead to less competition and accountability for larger businesses. It will also impact upon opportunities for employment whether casual or not.
Another group of employers who will not suffer are those within State and Federal Governments. Such an unworkable industrial system can only benefit this group who are never judged by flexible or productivity standards nor often by output.
The involvement of the Greens and some Cross Benchers in the proposed outcome as reported recently is no cause for optimism. Indeed, their involvement is likely to ensure that any trade-offs will not be directed to flexibility or productivity. In this regard the Federal Government has already made concessions, taking on board the “right to disconnect” to secure the Greens support, with little to no consultation with business leaders. In going down this path there has been little consideration how these changes affect employers and damaging effects it will have on interstate business. The amendments are victim of political back dealings that does not put the Australian economy and productivity at the forefront. The most significant IR reform since Howard is being decided by a crossbench elected by less than 130,000 voters. Support for this bill is being decided on which deal offers the greatest political advantage rather than the contents of the bill.
It is unfortunate that the above issues are so little debated when the consequences will, if these changes remain, be felt long into the future.
