Event: Andrew McKellar interview with Scott Haywood, Nine Radio Money News.
Speakers: Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Scott Haywood, host Nine Radio Money News.
Date: 21 November 2022.
Topics: Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill; industrial relations campaigning; Senate inquiry process; employment and wages data; new COVID-19 wave.

E&OE

Scott Haywood, host Nine Radio Money News: Andrew McKellar is the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and he joins me this evening from Parliament House. Andrew, welcome back to Money News.

Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Well, thank you. Great to be with you.

Scott: Andrew, the various chambers of commerce around the country have stepped up their campaign against these industrial relations bills. Why and what does the parliament need to do instead?

Andrew: Well, I think it’s very important today, we’ve seen all of the state and territory chambers of commerce coming together with the national chamber of commerce, speaking as one voice, and putting forward the concerns that business has with this legislation. We are very concerned that if this Bill goes through in its current form, it will mean that many businesses, particularly smaller and medium-sized businesses, will get roped into agreements that they can’t afford, that they don’t want, and that their employees actually don’t want. It’s not a good result for the economy.

Scott: The prime minister has accused opponents of reforms, Andrew, of harbouring an ingrained ideological objection to workers being paid fairly. What do you say to that?

Andrew: Look, that’s simply not true. I think business is very happy to see workers getting a pay rise and they deserve a pay rise. But what we’ve got to ensure is that if we pay more, that that isn’t then simply eaten up by higher inflation and higher interest rates. The problem with this bill is it implements a fundamental change in the way that bargaining occurs in this country so that it becomes one size fits all, that we have industry or sector wide agreements, rather than making bargaining work at the enterprise level, which is where you’re able to get productivity gains. And if you can do that, then you can get sustainable wage increases that are preserved, that don’t get eaten up by inflation. That’s what we need to do. We need to address the fundamental problem, and that’s not what this Bill is doing.

Scott: And with the RBA meeting Tuesday week or Tuesday, two weeks away, the first Tuesday in December, where they’re likely to put rates up by 0.25 per cent, that is already a concern to a number of business owners and households. But Labor has vowed to extend the parliamentary calendar to get this legislation through. Isn’t it more important that the bills have the time to be considered properly first?

Andrew: Absolutely. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. The government is rushing this. It’s trying to jam this legislation through. If you want an example of that, well, then tomorrow, the Senate committee, which is conducting an inquiry into this, they were given three weeks to do this inquiry. They’ve got their final hearings tomorrow with the Department with the Fair Work Commission, and then within two hours of the end of those hearings, they’re expected to produce their final report. That is a ludicrous situation. It is actually contemptuous, and I think really we should have a process where that inquiry should be allowed to run its course. The Senate should be given more time, and then we should see an objective proper analysis of this legislation coming out of that inquiry process.

Scott: Andrew, you’re calling on a split of the bill, so why is there so much pushback against that idea from the government? Because that would solve part of the problem of this short timeframe, wouldn’t it?

Andrew: I don’t know why they’re pushing back on that. We think that is a reasonable way to go. There are parts of the Bill where business has no fundamental arguments. So, if there are parts of the bill that are trying to achieve improved transparency and gender pay equity, no problem. If there are parts of the bill that are trying to address pay in the low paid sectors, in the care sector, in healthcare, a childcare, in aged care, then those parts of the Bill should be able to be looked at by the Senate and, if possible, passed. But there are other parts of the Bill where they have these fundamental problems, and they want to ram those through as well. That’s why we have an issue.

Scott: How different is this from the peace and love we saw from business groups and unions around the Job and Skills Summit?

Andrew: I think here there’s still a lot of good will out there. We don’t want to see all of that evaporate. We want to work constructively with the government, but I think there’s got to be an equal partnership here. We’ve got to have a proper dialogue. And when business has fundamental concerns, we’re going out, we’re speaking to our members, we’re talking to businesses, we’re doing surveys at the moment. In Western Australia, for example, the chamber there came back with initial survey results; 90 per cent of businesses that they spoke to said they are concerned about the impact of this legislation. So really here, I think there’s a role for government to listen to those concerns, to take those concerns on board. And where these problems exist, rather than trying to push that through, then really, I think let’s have the conversation.

Scott: Andrew, we’re only six months into this new government. Do you feel like the next two and a half years are going to be littered with similar problems for businesses that you represent?

Andrew: Well they don’t have to be. I mean, I do think the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was an exercise where people from business, from unions, from other areas of society, came together and there was a reasonable dialogue, and some good ideas came out of that. So I think we should try to continue and go forward in that spirit. But ultimately here, the government has to be part of that process. They have to set the tone, and I’m not sure that they’re doing that in this particular case because if they’re going to be intransigent, if they’re not going to sit down and have that discussion and offer up some real prospects of compromise, then I think we run the risk that we’re going to have this debate happening over a longer period.

Scott: Andrew, just switching topics. Last week we saw wages, unemployment data come out. Were either of those numbers a surprise to you, and do you think fuller employment with higher wages gives Australian households the tools to weather any oncoming headwinds?

Andrew: We saw last week the employment figures continue to be very strong. We know that there is still strong demand out there for labour, that business is still struggling to fill all those vacancies that we have, to get skilled employees into the labour force and into the jobs that we have. At the same time, I think what was understated were the figures in terms of wages growth. The Wage Price Index is a very narrow measure of wage growth and the evidence that we’re looking at says that, in fact, in the marketplace at the moment, total remuneration is growing much more than those official figures suggest.

Scott: Finally, Andrew, one thing that’s said to dominate business conversations, if not today, but very soon, but we heard on the weekend, and we’ve heard again today about the next wave of COVID that’s expected to sweep through the country over the next few months. You’d be encouraged to get back to the office throughout the year and then maybe employers will be saying work from home again. Does this new COVID wave change everything?

Andrew: Look, I think obviously we’ve got to be vigilant, and we’ve got to follow that public health advice. We certainly hope that the directions that have been set are sustainable. We cannot go back to a situation of significantly more restrictions again. There’s no way that we can go back into that kind of environment. But if we have to take some other measures along the way, if we have to encourage things like a bit of social distancing and mask wearing, those sorts of things, make sure that people are getting the booster shots if they’ve got the opportunity to do so, then those are sensible precautions that we should look at applying. We don’t want to go back into a situation where we are doing fundamental damage to the economy and to society. If we have to go back to those much harsher restrictions, I think that’s just untenable.

Scott: Agree. Andrew McKellar, thank you so much for joining me this evening on Money News.

Andrew: Great. Good to be with you. Thanks very much.

Event: Andrew McKellar interview with Greg Jennett, ABC News Afternoon Briefing.
Speakers: Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Greg Jennett, host ABC News Afternoon Briefing.
Date: 21 November 2022.
Topics: Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill; chamber network open letter to senators.

E&OE

Greg Jennett, host ABC News Afternoon Briefing: Andrew McKellar, welcome back to the program. We’re very much in the countdown now to the end of the legislative year for this parliament, and I see the Chamber of Commerce and Industry is splashing a modest amount on advertising against the industrial relations bill. How much are you spending?

Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Good afternoon, Greg. Great to be with you. Look, I think the important message here is that you have all of the chambers of commerce and industry around Australia acting in a unified way, coming together to reflect the concerns that businesses are saying they have about this legislation. So it’s not about how much money we’re spending on an ad, it’s the fact that we’re all coming together with one single message reflecting the concerns of business at this point in time.

Greg: And what is the outcome that you are seeking? Is it to kick this can down the road by splitting the Bill and making what we might call procedural changes? Or do you want to see it defeated in the here and now?

Andrew: If the Bill was to go forward, as it stands, really our concern is it’s not fit to pass. But look, I guess we’re open to any solution the Senate wants to seek. If it wants to split the Bill, that’s one way to do it. There are elements of the Bill where business doesn’t really have any concern or objections. So if you’re talking about gender pay equity, the arrangements for the low-paid sectors, those are not controversial. It’s the single interest stream that is really where the main problems are.

Greg: Multi-employer bargaining.

Andrew: That’s right. Yeah.

Greg: So, do you have any examples within your own membership of a firm with a staff headcount of 16 or other who would be directly dragged into negotiations that would cost them more under this model?

Andrew: Indeed, there are many businesses that are coming forward. In fact, last week, the West Australian Chamber went out and surveyed all of their members. They’ve come back with some very comprehensive results. It shows that there are more than 90 per cent of business in their survey signifying that they have concerns. If you drill down into that, then yes, you start to find examples. So whether it’s an engineering firm, whether it’s a small business or retail outlet, we are finding many examples of businesses that are saying they do have concerns, that they can potentially get roped in to agreements that they don’t necessarily want to be part of, and which they can’t necessarily afford. They don’t have the resources to manage that sort of system in the future.

Greg: What do you mean by can’t necessarily afford? Because that’s the secret sauce in all of this, isn’t it? They might want to, but could they afford to? There’s no way of actually knowing what the price effect of a wage agreement through this multi-employer bargaining stream would be at this point, is there?

Andrew: I think this is one of the problems. So the government is trying to ram this legislation through, it wants to have it through before the end of the year, before Christmas. They’ve given the Senate very little time to scrutinize this. Every day that goes by, more and more businesses are coming to us, coming to the state and territory chambers of commerce, and saying: We have real questions about this. We have concerns. What does it mean for us? The Senate hasn’t been given time to dig into those issues, to understand the unintended consequences that are out there for business. If we rush into this, there’s no way back. We will end up imposing significant costs on business. We will end up costing jobs and in some cases, businesses will go to the wall.

Greg: Costing jobs. How many do you say?

Andrew: It’s going to be very hard to quantify, but look, there are huge concerns out there. We’ve seen various numbers in sectors, the resources sector and so on. Our focus is mainly on small and medium-sized business. And 98 per cent of all businesses are small business. The impact there could be catastrophic.

Greg: So mining, since you raised the example, is talking about 30,000-33,000 jobs lost through a combination of industrial changes, but also perhaps forthcoming taxes. Would you be in that ballpark? Are you doing any work on projections?

Andrew: What we’re doing at the moment is we’re out there talking to business. So we’ve got a number of the state and territory chambers of commerce going out, surveying members, starting to pull that data together. So I think we’ve got to take the time, see what those results show. The results we’ve seen already indicate a concern about there being a far-reaching impact. But honestly, this is one of the issues. So there hasn’t been a proper analysis produced. And one of the things that we would say to government is you haven’t been able to show us any analysis that supports the assertion that this will increase wages in a sustainable way.

Greg: We’re talking about numbers. I guess the numbers that matter most in the short term are those in the Senate. The government is mathematically so much closer to the line of passage here. Would you agree that then you are in mounting this rear-guard action?

Andrew: Well, those are the numbers in the Senate. Essentially, we need to engage with all of the crossbench. We need to convince all of them that this needs to take more time, or that the bill needs to be split, or that it should be rejected. So that’s a discussion obviously, we’re seeking to have with all of those senators. We’ve written to every single senator, government, opposition, crossbench, today to communicate that to them. We hope that they will be prepared to listen.

Greg: All right. Well, you’ve got your work cut out for you, Andrew McKellar, with roughly speaking of fortnight to go. We’ll let you get on with that task. Thanks for joining us.

Andrew: Great, Thanks, Greg.

Event: Andrew McKellar interview with Tom Connell, Sky News NewsDay.
Speakers: Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Tom Connell, host Sky News NewsDay.
Date: 17 November 2022.
Topics: Wages data; jobs numbers; business profits.

E&OE

Tom Connell, host Sky News NewsDay: Let’s return to industrial relations and in fact as well the low unemployment and also inflation in terms of wages data that was out yesterday. Joining me here in the studio, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO, Andrew McKellar. Thanks very much for your time. A jump in wages did come, but it’s still below inflation. Given such a tight employment market, is there still a bit of something that’s broken in the system in terms of bargaining power and workers getting a fair share?

Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Well, Tom, we are seeing obviously some evidence that wages are starting to move. I would go back to a point that I’ve made before, which is that this measure, the wage price index, is a very narrow measure. If you take what we are seeing through the surveys and the businesses we are talking to out in the marketplace, wages growth is significantly higher than what these figures are showing.

Tom: Is it higher than inflation?

Andrew: Look, it’s coming up to that level.

Tom: That’s still below.

Andrew: So obviously that’s still an issue. In some sectors, we are seeing stronger wages growth.

Tom: So, this is the issue though, 3.4 per cent unemployment and I think 6 per cent under employment, which is really low compared to where it was at. If someone had told you that that’s the level of unemployment, but wages are below inflation no matter what measure you mention, you’d say, well, what’s happening here? What’s going on?

Andrew: Well, clearly the labour market is very tight and that’s why behind the scenes we are seeing much higher wages growth than what’s coming through in those very narrow official figures. Obviously, if it remains tight, then pressure on wages. If you’re going to attract labour, you will have to pay more. So, I think that is happening out in the marketplace. I don’t think we can ignore that.

Tom: One of your pushes on IR changes has basically been to carve out small business from a lot of the new measures. Is that going to mean that we fail to really get wages moving though? There’s a lot of people that work for small businesses.

Andrew: Well, small business is extremely significant and the issue for many small businesses is we don’t want to crowd them in with red tape. We don’t want to put a lot of additional complexity and restrictions on them. We don’t want tie them into the terms and conditions that much bigger businesses have. They can’t afford it and they don’t want it. And unfortunately, the Bill that the government’s bringing forward does do that for many small and medium-sized businesses. And that’s why we have real concerns about it.

Tom: Okay. So how do I just get moving then? Is it just by goodwill?

Andrew: Fundamentally, we have to go back and fix up the enterprise bargaining system. So that’s what we-

Tom: Well, changes to the BOOT will mean small business has some flexibility and they’ll start paying their employees more.

Andrew: That is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, what the government is bringing forward takes us back in the wrong direction. It takes us back to a one size fits all. It takes us back to industry-based agreements. It’s not about fixing the fundamental problem that we have in our bargaining system.

Tom: Is there excess profit being made out there?

Andrew: There are some sectors in particular, mining and resources where they’re making beyond-

Tom: Beyond mining and resources. That’s the obvious one.

Andrew: So, no. I don’t believe across most of the economy. If you look at manufacturing, if you look at retail, if you look at many areas where small business is operating, construction and the like, these sectors, they’re facing rapidly increasing costs, input costs, energy costs. That’s keeping pressure on profitability in those sectors. So no, we’re not in a situation where that’s the argument.

Tom: All right, well that probably gets to the core premise, I suppose, where there’s disagreement not only just over how to fix it, but what’s broken. But perhaps for another day, we’ve got to leave it there. Andrew McKellar, thank you.

Andrew: Thanks, Tom.

Event: Andrew McKellar interview with Allison Langdon and Karl Stefanovic, The Today Show.
Speakers: Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Allison Langdon and Karl Stefanovic, co-hosts The Today Show.
Date: 16 November 2022.
Topics: Chinese trade sanctions; Albanese-Xi G20 meeting; diversifying export markets.

E&OE

Allison Langdon, host The Today Show: Allison: Well, it’s going to be a tense day in Bali as G20 leaders hold crisis meetings on the deadly rogue Russian missile that hit Poland. It comes hours after our prime minister met with China’s president to discuss the big issues from security to trade.

Karl Stefanovic, host The Today Show: Chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar joins us now. Andrew, good morning to you. Thanks for your time this morning. How are you feeling about the talks? I mean, there’s been so much happen even with Poland in the last six or 12 hours. There’s a lot of uncertainty out there, isn’t there?

Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Good morning, Karl. Good morning, Ally. Great to be with you. Yes, I was up in Bali over the weekend to Monday for the B20 talks and the Prime Minister arrived with very strong support and engagement from the business community. I think we very much welcomed the meeting that the prime minister had with Chinese President Xi overnight. I think that’s a very positive step forward. The important thing here is we have to move forward on the trade restrictions that have been imposed at the moment. That’s costing Australian exporters about $20 billion a year. But I think this is a valuable first step to get those talks going.

Allison: I mean, that’s it, isn’t it? That meeting you would say probably is the first baby step, and we’re not going to see any immediate resolutions. What kind of timeframe are you looking at, do you think, for some of those restrictions to lift?

Andrew: That’s not clear at this stage. Obviously, dialogue between the Australian government and the Chinese government has been frozen for a number of years now. We’ve been seeing the first steps taken with some very high-level ministerial meetings, but now for the prime minister to be able to meet with the Chinese president, that’s the first time that’s happened since 2016. We’re very hopeful that that will now start to lead to some steps to normalise the relationship, and hopefully we can convince the Chinese to begin removing those restrictions they’ve been placing on Australian exports.

Karl: You know what though, I mean, we’ve been pretty clever. A lot of the small and big businesses have started to pivot around China. They would’ve seen that, and I guess hopefully it’ll lead to some of those tariffs being brought down and some of that trade starting up again. But most businesses need to be diverse, don’t they? They need to be able to be nimble enough to go into another country.

Andrew: You’re absolutely right, Karl, and I think this is one of the reasons that we had such a strong business delegation up in Bali. Obviously one of the things that the prime minister has been emphasizing is the importance of building that relationship with other significant economies. Indonesia is one of those. Next year, India will be hosting the G20, another very important economy. You’re exactly right. Business has to focus on diversifying their markets, making sure that we’re not just tied into one big market like China.

Allison: I think that lesson has been learned and we’re sort of doubtful of seeing that, but good to see those steps being taken and there is at least dialogue. Thanks for joining us, Andrew. Appreciate it.

Karl: Thanks, Andrew.

Event: Andrew McKellar interview with Matthew Doran, ABC News Afternoon Briefing.
Speakers: Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Matthew Doran, host ABC News Afternoon Briefing.
Date: 10 November 2022.
Topics: Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill; industrial relations campaigning.

E&OE

Matthew Doran, host ABC News Afternoon Briefing: Andrew McKellar, welcome to Afternoon Briefing. Your position on this Bill seems to be pretty consistent. We are now at this stage where all of these amendments have been presented. The government trying to get this done as quickly as possible. You’re still having some serious concerns about how it plays out?

Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Hi, Matt. Good to be with you. Look, absolutely. Business, I think, is very concerned about the impact that this legislation will have. We are very concerned that government is absolutely rushing this through. They’re not giving the parliament; they’re not giving the Senate the time for an open and transparent review of it. And the more we look at it, I mean, we’ve seen 30 pages of amendments today. This is complex legislation. It’s imposing very significant requirements on business and on employees. It is really a big risk that the government is taking with this legislation. We’re very concerned about the impact this is going to have on small and medium-sized business in particular.

Matthew: We know that this Omnibus Bill, there are a wide range of measures contained in it, going from the contentious parts like multi-employer bargaining through to areas where it seems certainly in parliament, there’s support for it. Are there any areas where ACCI is happy with this bill?

Andrew: Look, there are parts of the legislation which are less controversial and which I think business would be happy to see being passed. So, where we’re talking about issues of gender pay equality, support for lower paid workers. Obviously these are issues where business is much more flexible in ensuring that we get some outcomes and where the government has a clear mandate, then those are issues which are going to be less controversial. But it’s very complex legislation. It is imposing very different requirements on business. It’s a fundamental change to the approach to bargaining, in particular this so-called single interest stream, is something that is not fit for passage at the moment. And it’s not just business that’s saying that. Leading labour market economists, academics are saying that it’s not ready, it hasn’t been cooked properly. We’ve got to look at it much more carefully. It shouldn’t be being just forced through the parliament in the way it is.

Matthew: For people at home who don’t actually understand what that stream issue is, can you explain it in layman’s terms?

Andrew: Look effectively, this so-called single interest stream is creating a new arrangement of multi-employer bargaining. So, bringing together different businesses with different characteristics, whether they’re in the same location, whether they are similar types of businesses, whether they’re under the same regulatory regime, trying to push them together into a single one size fits all agreement. And it’s not voluntary. In a lot of cases, businesses can be simply co-opted, forced into these agreements against their will, imposing significant costs, putting at risk jobs as a result, resulting in higher costs, feeding back into inflation, which will only lead to higher interest rates. It’s not good for the economy, it’s not good for employment. It’s not good for small and medium sized businesses, and it’s not fit for passage.

Matthew: There’d be people out there, cynics, who would say, “Well, the business community would say that, wouldn’t they?” Are we scaremongering here?

Andrew: No, we’re not. I think the fact that you are seeing so many different business groups coming out now and raising their concerns about that. Even some groups that initially were prepared to entertain these ideas, they’ve looked at the legislation, they’ve seen what it delivers, they’ve seen the risks in it. And now across the board, we’ve got very clear views from really all in the business community saying, this is a risk that we cannot afford to take.

Matthew: So, what’s the next step from here? Because it seems like the government is going to continue pressing on with this proposal. We’ve had members of the resources sector suggest that an anti-bill advertising campaign could be in the works. Is that something that your organisation would back?

Andrew: Well, we want to see the parliamentary process play out. Clearly, the Senate will be very important here. We’re speaking very actively with all of the senators with the crossbench in particular. So, there’s a lot of pressure on them. Everyone is beating a path to their door. We think the Senate needs the opportunity to have an open and transparent inquiry to get detailed submissions to make their own assessment. But if the government wants to force this to a vote before Christmas, then we would urge them to oppose the bill. If they want to try and split it, let’s see how that comes out. That will be very difficult. But it’s not fit for passage at the moment and obviously we hope that the Senate will have the opportunity to be able to look at this and make its own mind up.

Matthew: But other than lobbying politicians and speaking to us here on the ABC where you are, of course, always welcome, how do you push that message in the public? Are we ramping up for some sort of public campaign here, pulling apart or ripping apart this bill?

Andrew: Well, I think, let’s take that one step at a time. We’re out consulting with our members. We’re trying to inform them about the impacts. We’ve got to do that first. That’s our responsibility. We’re talking to members of parliament. We are communicating in public on this issue. We’re not being silent. Whether we get into paid campaigns or those sorts of things in the future, I think, let’s see how this goes. The union movement, when it’s come to these issues, has never hesitated to take that step. So, I think, we want to have an open, transparent, responsible, mature discussion with government on this legislation, but if the government is going to insist on ramming this through, then I think business is entitled to put its perspective into the public domain.

Matthew: Andrew McKellar, thanks for joining us.

Andrew: Thanks very much.

Event: Andrew McKellar interview with Danica De Giorgio, Sky News AM Agenda.
Speakers: Andrew McKellar, chief executive Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Danica De Giorgio, host Sky News AM Agenda.
Date: 10 November 2022.
Topics: Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill; industrial relations campaign.

E&OE

Danica: Six of Australia’s biggest and most influential business groups are banding together in an effort to have the government’s industrial relations bill scrapped in its current draft. The government has set its sights on getting the legislation passed by Christmas. Joining me now live is the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us. We’ve just seen in the last 10 minutes Tony Burke introducing that Bill into Parliament. What part of the reforms concern you the most?

Andrew: Good morning, Danica. Look, I think as business looks at this more and more closely, then I think the alarm across all sectors, small business, medium sized businesses, it’s really growing. This is a very complex piece of legislation. The government knows that they’ve been rushing this. They know that they didn’t have all of the detail right when they originally put the bill into the Parliament. Now, they’re bringing in a raft of amendments. They’re very complex amendments. It’s not getting any simpler. We really can’t understand all of the effects that this Bill is going to have. But one or two things are very clear, it is going to make life much more difficult for small and medium sized businesses. It will take control away from those businesses. It will hand it to unions and to the commission. It will lead to an outcome where many businesses face the prospect of wage increases, additional costs that they can’t afford, that they don’t want, and that won’t be offset against improvements in productivity or processes at the enterprise level. That’s very dangerous for those businesses. It’s very dangerous for the economy and for households more generally. It’s going to add into inflationary pressures, ultimately lead to higher interest rates. It makes the risk of recession much higher. It’s not a good outcome.

Danica: The government has said that it is willing to negotiate on these reforms. What sort of amendments would allay your concerns?

Andrew: That’s very difficult to say. We have been sitting down and having discussions in good faith with the government. The reality is it is a rush job. It is impossible, I think, to make this Bill workable from where it stands at the moment, and that’s what all of those business groups are saying. They’re saying that, at this point in time, this Bill is not fit for passage. And it’s not just business groups that are saying that. If you look at what’s coming out now, we’re seeing respected labour market economists, academics, saying that the Bill is not fit for purpose. Even academics who normally are not supporting an employer perspective, much more often supporting a union or employee perspective on these sorts of issues, they’re coming out now and saying that it’s just not fit for passage. It’s a real concern and I think the government has to pull back here and think about what it is trying to achieve with this Bill.

Danica: You mentioned wages, the government was elected on a basis of getting wages moving, so don’t they have a mandate to do so?

Andrew: Well, they made that very clear, and business supports that objective. The problem here is that this is endangering the economy. The reality is this is going to lead to job losses. It’s going to lead to outcomes that won’t be fit for purpose at the workplace level. It’s doing a lot more than potentially trying to increase wages. It’s handing power to trade unions. It’s giving them a right of veto in many cases which they don’t have currently, and the consequences of that are far reaching and extremely undesirable from an economic standpoint. So, honestly, this is bad legislation. The government, I think, really should go back, and have a rethink. We should be sitting down with unions, with government, with employers, with business groups, working together, trying to get an outcome which will deliver on the commitment that the government gave, and then it will have the support of business. It doesn’t at the moment.

Danica: Will the ACCI mount an ad campaign or join a campaign that’s being talked about with other business groups to fight against these changes?

Andrew: Look, there are many groups and many businesses who are very concerned about this. We’re not going to get into the game of threatening to do that sort of thing. We’ll have reasonable, good faith discussions with the government. We’re talking to senators, members of Parliament at the moment. But, of course, at any point in the future, we will strongly represent the views of our members. If that’s what they want to do then, of course, that’s something that comes into play at some point in the future. That’s not the way we want to conduct the discussion at the moment. We want this to be a calm and rational consideration of the bill, but, obviously, in its current state, we would say very clearly it is not fit for purpose, it’s not fit to be passed by the Parliament, and we’ve got to work that through.

Danica: So, you’re leaving the door open then for a campaign? Have you at all had active discussions about pouring money into this?

Andrew: No. There are groups that are undertaking those sorts of discussions. We’re not threatening. That’s not our style of operation. We’ll have a calm and reasonable discussion. Of course, if it gets to the point where there’s a view that there should be more communication at a public level to inform people and businesses about the impact of what’s happening as a result of legislation, then, of course, that’s something that can be looked at down the track. And trade unions in the past have never hesitated to go down that path when they thought that it served their interests. We’ll always be standing up for business and business interests. We want to see a stronger Australian economy. We want to see the high levels of employment that we have maintained. We want responsible wage outcomes that deliver higher living standards. Those are the things that we’ll always be standing up for.

Danica: Andrew McKellar, we have to leave it there. Thank you so much.