Industry groups ‘hypocrites’ on complex awards: small business

Small business has accused rival industry groups of thwarting attempts to simplify the workplace system.

Council of Small Business of Australia CEO Peter Strong says some industry groups did not want a simpler system ­because they feared members would no longer pay for their specialist workplace relations ­advice. Picture: AAP

Small business has accused rival industry groups of thwarting attempts to simplify the workplace system because they feared losing revenue as companies would no longer need their specialist advice.

Peter Strong, chief executive of the Council of Small Business ­Organisations Australia, said some industry associations wanted to keep awards complex because it was in their financial interest.

Responding to a raft of wage underpayments by large companies, employer groups have been calling for legislative changes to further simplify awards. But Mr Strong said some industry groups were “hypocritical” because while they publicly called for less complexity, they had sought to oppose attempts to simplify the system.

Asserting that some unions and law firms wanted to look after themselves by maintaining complexity, he said there were “absolutely” some employer groups “who are in the same boat”.

He said some industry groups had objected to making awards easier to read and also opposed a proposal to create a small business award. “They aren’t embracing technology, they aren’t embracing simplicity. They want to maintain complexity, I have no doubt, because they make money from it,” he told The Australian.

Asked if he believed some ­industry groups were maintaining complexity because it was in their commercial interest, Mr Strong said: “Absolutely, absolutely. If an employer has trouble with an award, they are more likely to join an association and pay someone to get that information.

“If you are a worker and can’t understand what’s going on in front of you, and you are scared, then you are more likely to join a union. But if you are making it simpler, then people — in theory or in practice even — are less ­likely to have a reason to join.”

He said some industry groups did not want a simpler system ­because they feared members would no longer pay for their specialist workplace relations ­advice. “That’s their fear and they are wrong to have that belief ­because they offer services that businesses need and that’s around financing, exporting and a whole range of things,” he said.

Asked if it was hypocritical that some industry groups were calling for simplicity while sabotaging attempts to modernise the system, he said: “Absolutely. Yes, … they have got to confront change.”

NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet warned the federal government last night not to further complicate Australia’s “inefficient” industrial relations system.

“What the federal government should be careful of is not creating a greater problem than the one they are trying to solve,” he told Sky News. “Government departments and agencies will always come up with ideas of increasing red tape, increasing regulation and making it more difficult for businesses. The more you do that the greater the cost to businesses off the back of it.”

Mr Perrottet’s comments came as Attorney-General Christian Porter questioned union calls to give greater powers to officials to enter workplaces to spot check payrolls in the wake of the raft of employee underpayments.

Mr Porter said unions had powers under the Fair Work Act to enter workplaces and be able to access and copy documents related to suspected contraventions.

He said the powers were previously hailed by the ACTU as a “historic step forward for working Australians” when they were introduced by the previous Labor government and they had not changed under the Coalition.

“What they are asking for seems to me to be something they already have,” he said. “It has not changed since 2009.”

ACTU secretary Sally McManus said the changes introduced by Labor had been an improvement on John Howard’s WorkChoices laws but were not the same as previously existed.