"The responsibility now lies with the Senate to reject the Government's flawed and unnecessary IR Bill following its rushed passage through the House of Representatives today,” Innes Willox, Chief Executive of the national employer association Ai Group said today.
"It is a Bill that in its current form would implement major and regressive changes to Australia's workplace relations arrangements that would set us back decades and damage the economy.
"While the Government has engaged with employer groups and has put forward a number of amendments as a result of those discussions, the more we examine the Bill, and in many cases the new amendments, the more problems we identify that have potentially damaging results for businesses, employment and living standards.
"Notwithstanding the amendments so far, a major deal-breaker remains the Government's insistence to include in the Bill the unjustified expansion of a multi-employer bargaining stream with the potential for nationwide strikes.
"The Government has proposed to exclude a specific type of 'building and construction work' from the multi-employer bargaining regime. However, it is important to appreciate that the exemption is extremely narrow. There are a raft of building and construction industry activities that aren't covered by the carve out, including for example all civil, metal or engineering construction work. A much broader exemption is required.
"Given the risks involved, the Bill as it stands should be rejected by the Senate. At the very least, the Senate should be allowed much more time to consider and propose amendments that would identify and rectify the numerous flaws in the Bill.
"Ai Group has written to crossbench Senators outlining our major and ongoing concerns with the Bill detailed below.
"Too much is at stake to support the rush to pass this Bill," Mr Willox said.
Ongoing major concerns with the IR Bill include:
- The proposed expansion of multi-employer bargaining would reduce productivity, investment and jobs.
- The proposed widespread expansion in industrial action rights would be very damaging for businesses and the community.
- Currently, the single interest bargaining stream in the Fair Work Act is very narrow, as was intended when introduced by the Rudd Labor Government. It was clearly not intended to be a stream for widespread multi-employer bargaining, as proposed in the Bill. In effect, the expression 'single interest' in the legislation would become a misnomer. The criteria in the Bill for access to the stream is far too loose. The provisions would no doubt be used by unions to achieve industry sector agreements in a wide range of sectors.
- The criteria for access to the supported bargaining stream is also far too loose. There is the risk that the provisions would be misused by unions in a wide range of industry sectors beyond those low paid sectors which the provisions are purportedly aimed at.
- The provisions in the Bill which deal with the interaction between single-enterprise agreements and supported bargaining agreements are very unfair to employers and employees. Employers and their employees will be able to be readily forced by unions into supported bargaining agreements and, once covered by such agreements, it will be virtually impossible to bargain directly with their own employees.
- The provisions of the Bill that enable employers that have not been involved in negotiation of a single interest bargaining stream agreement to subsequently be made a party to the agreement are very unfair. They would enable unions to reach agreement with a few employers on the terms of a single interest employer agreement (perhaps those that already have highly restrictive and uncompetitive provisions in their enterprise agreements) and then extend the agreement to hundreds of other employers. The likely pursuit of such a strategy by unions is entirely predictable.
- The proposed new power for the FWC to arbitrate 'intractable bargaining disputes', including for some types of multi-employer agreements, would be harmful for businesses, workers and the community. The criteria for access to arbitration is inadequate.
- The ability for a union to force an employer to bargain for a replacement agreement, even if both the employer and the majority of its employees do not wish to bargain, is unfair and inappropriate.
- The union veto on employers and employees agreeing to vary a single interest employer agreement, a supported bargaining agreement or a cooperative bargaining agreement, to remove the employer and its employees from the coverage, is unfair and inappropriate.
- The proposed new restrictions on the termination of enterprise agreements are unworkable and need to be amended.
The proposed changes to the 'BOOT' and agreement making process make some important improvements to the system but also create new and significant practical problems and miss the opportunity to rectify some notorious issues that could be readily addressed.
Media enquiries
Tony Melville – 0419 190 347
