PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr FRENCH (Moore) (18:14): I've always found it fascinating that the Liberal Party calls itself the party of freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom of enterprise, freedom of the market—they absolutely love freedom. That is, of course, unless you're a worker who wants a better job.
Then, suddenly, freedom gets a little bit more complicated. Apparently, businesses should be free to compete, employers should be free to make a profit and markets should be free to operate, but, if you're a hairdresser who wants to work at the salon down the road—well, steady on! We can't have people wandering around exercising their economic freedom!
Welcome to the wonderful world of non-compete clauses. These are conditions in employment contracts that can stop workers from joining a competitor or starting their own business. And we're not just talking about senior executives on multimillion-dollar salaries.
We're talking about hairdressers, childcare workers, construction workers and people earning minimum wage. More than three million Australian workers are covered by these restrictions. A lot of Australians are being told they are free to leave their jobs but not necessarily free to find another one.
As I like to say, I've worked as an electrician and as an industrial lawyer, and I've seen some pretty interesting employment contracts. Some employers seem to believe that paying someone a wage means they've purchased exclusive rights to that person's future, as though hiring an electrician means you own the rights to electricity. Imagine if I finished my apprenticeship and my boss said, 'Tom, you're welcome to resign, but you can't work for another electrical contractor.' I'd have to say, 'Mate, what do you want me to do—become a plumber?' Frankly, I have standards, but this is exactly the sort of restriction Australian workers have been dealing with.
Some of these clauses might not even be legally enforceable, but that doesn't stop employers from threatening legal action. And, when you've got a mortgage and kids to feed, hiring a lawyer to argue about whether you can accept another job isn't particularly appealing. Australians shouldn't need legal advice to accept a pay rise, and that is why the Albanese Labor government is taking action.
From 1 January 2027, we're banning non-compete clauses for workers earning below the relevant high-income threshold, currently around $190,000. We're also tackling arrangements where businesses agree not to hire each other's workers or to make deals to hold down wages, because, apparently, some employers have decided that, if competing for customers is difficult, perhaps they can agree to not compete for employees.
And we're supposed to call that the free market. I can almost hear the arguments coming from those opposite: What about business confidence? What about employer certainty?
What about the sacred right of a business owner to stop someone getting a better job? Well, what about the worker? What about the apprentice who wants to earn more?
What about the childcare educator offered better conditions across town or the experienced tradie who wants to start a business? Workers have ambitions too. Surely, for the party that has spent decades lecturing Australians about entrepreneurship, this is something they should support.
That is unless their vision of entrepreneurship is that you're welcome to start a business provided it doesn't compete with an existing one, which is a rather unusual interpretation of capitalism. These reforms aren't just good for workers; they are good for the economy. Research suggests affected workers could see wage increases of up to four per cent, and the Productivity Commission modelling suggests these reforms could add around $5 billion to the economy annually.
More competition, more business creation, better wages, higher productivity—it almost sounds like the economic reform those opposite used to claim they believed in. The coalition spent nearly a decade telling Australians that wages would rise if we improved productivity. Then they presided over the slowest decade of productivity growth in 60 years.
Now, Labor is delivering reforms designed to improve productivity and lift wages. Who would have thought that giving workers more opportunities might actually be good for the economy! The principle is simple.
If an employer wants to keep a good worker, there is a straightforward way to do it: pay them properly, treat them well and give them opportunities to develop. Don't threaten to sue them because somebody down the road has offered them an extra $5 an hour. That's not employee retention; that is a hostage negotiation with a pay slip.
A competitive economy should work for everyone—not just for business owners but for people who turn up every morning and keep those businesses running. If those opposite genuinely believe in freedom, competition and enterprise, here's the opportunity to demonstrate it, because workers deserve the freedom to pursue a better life. It's called the free market, not the free market for everyone except the people doing the work.