Employment

Rebello expressed caution regarding the proposal, citing warnings from business groups like COSBOA and the Australian Industry Group about potential negative impacts on small businesses. Rebello argued that non-compete clauses protect the significant investment employers make in training and developing staff, particularly regarding customer goodwill. The member warned that removing these protections could disproportionately affect small businesses and reduce their ability to pay wages.

Jordan-Baird supported the motion, stating that non-compete clauses hold workers back from better opportunities and stagnate wages. Jordan-Baird noted that the reforms would lift wages for affected workers by up to four per cent and close loopholes allowing wage-fixing and no-poach agreements. The member contrasted the government's productivity agenda with the Coalition's record, arguing the changes align Australia with other advanced economies.

Willcox opposed the motion, arguing that small businesses are under significant financial pressure and need protection for their intellectual property and client relationships. Willcox stated that the ban removes reasonable safeguards for businesses that invest in training employees, potentially leading to greater uncertainty. The member criticised the government for consulting inadequately and compared the situation to recent policy reversals on credit card surcharges.

French supported the ban, arguing that non-compete clauses unfairly restrict workers' economic freedom and ability to pursue better pay. French highlighted that many clauses are unenforceable but still deter workers through the threat of legal action. The member emphasised that the reforms would boost productivity and add approximately $5 billion to the economy annually, benefiting both workers and the broader market.

Chaffey opposed the motion, citing high rates of small business insolvency and concerns from industry groups about the impact on workforce stability and training incentives. Chaffey argued that the government's policies, including tax changes and the credit card surcharge ban, have placed excessive strain on small businesses. The member warned that the legislation could create legal uncertainty and discourage employers from investing in their staff.

Clutterham supported the reforms, explaining that non-compete clauses are currently presumed invalid unless employers prove they are reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests. Clutterham argued that employers often rely on the unequal bargaining power in contracts to enforce clauses that would not survive court scrutiny. The member stated the ban targets unfair restraints while allowing high-income earners, who have stronger negotiating positions, to retain such protections.

Pasin stated that the Coalition would assess the legislation but noted that current law already requires non-compete clauses to be reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests. Pasin argued that businesses have a right to protect client relationships and proprietary processes, particularly in sectors like real estate and technical trades. The member rejected the notion that the reforms address a widespread abuse, suggesting the current legal framework is sufficient.

Templeman supported the ban, highlighting that non-compete clauses often trap low-wage workers in their roles due to fear of legal costs, even if the clauses are unenforceable. Templeman noted that the Fair Work Ombudsman cannot currently advise on these clauses, leaving workers without clear guidance. The member argued the reforms would restore fairness and dynamism to the labour market, complementing other competition policy measures.

Pike expressed concern that the reforms would undermine small business confidence and reduce risk appetite for hiring new staff. Pike cited feedback from local businesses, particularly in real estate, about the need to protect market intelligence and client contacts. The member warned that the legislation goes further than originally announced and could lead to fewer jobs being created if businesses become hesitant to employ staff.