Speakers: BCA Chief Executive, Bran Black; AIG Head of NSW Helen Waldron; ARC Chief Executive Chris Rodwell; COSBOA Director Simon Foster; MBA NSW Chief Executive Matthew Pollock
Topics: NSW Digital Work Systems Bill
Bran Black, BCA Chief Executive: Well, we employer groups representing businesses small, medium and large, right across our economy are here today, and we are urging the New South Wales Government to shelve this bill on digital access or at the very least make some important amendments.
There are a number of key concerns that we’ve got in relation to this piece of legislation. In the first instance, there is no gap in the existing law that has been identified. We argue and we think very clearly the evidence shows that the New South Wales legislation, as it stands, does the job.
Nobody has been able to articulate where the existing gap is and that’s an important consideration because it leads to the second point, which is the breadth of the access powers that this Bill affords.
It’s access to emails, it’s access to payroll systems, HR systems, it’s access to intellectual property, confidential information, all these things, and more can be accessed by union officials, and the Bill gives them more power than what the police have in terms of that access.
And that leads to a third critical consideration, and that’s investment. Ultimately, we want to see Australia attract the most investment that it can. We want to see New South Wales attract the most investment that it can.
We’ve seen the New South Wales Government undertake some really good work in terms of planning, in terms of workers’ compensation, but this type of legislation sends the state backwards. We don’t want to see that. So I reiterate that point, for the sake of small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses all around the country. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a farmer, whether you’re a florist, whether you’re a vet surgeon, whether or not you’re a large multinational on behalf of all of them we are saying set aside this Bill, or at the very least make the sensible amendments which we have spoken about and we have proposed.
Chris Rodwell, ARC Chief Executive: Retailers across this country are doing it very tough, and if you’re a retailer in New South Wales, you’re doing it tougher still if this Bill goes through. This is regulation that’s not needed. It provides unions unfettered access. So if you’re a cafe or a small clothing retailer in this state, and you get treated differently from retailers in other states now, you’ve got that extra piece of burden. Make no mistake, retailers have a very significant burden that they’re carrying in terms of the regulation and the legislation that they need to meet. and
We had 743 retail trade insolvencies up until the end of December of 2025, that six-month period. Compare that to financial year 2022 where we had 406 retail insolvencies across the total 12 months. This is something that retailers across this state do not need. It is unfair to put them under an additional burden that retailers in other states don’t have to wear.
The unfettered access, if you’re a small retailer, you’re basically providing unions the opportunity to go in to look at your laptop, which has personal data, which has your own business data, and it’s an extraordinary overreach. It’s absolutely critical that the New South Wales Government rethink and lengthen consultation, because in its current state, this is just going to impact retailers operating in New South Wales to a much greater extent. It is a burden they cannot afford.
Matthew Pollock, MBA NSW Chief Executive: Well, look what this bill does is it acts against the government’s own objectives to build more homes and to deliver an $89 billion pipeline of major projects in New South Wales.
It makes New South Wales a less attractive destination for investment into housing, and it makes New South Wales a less attractive destination for contractors to come here and build those homes and work on those major projects.
This Bill is a productivity killer for construction. It gives unions unprecedented access to commercial and sensitive information on major projects and makes those projects more vulnerable to delays and to cost increases.
We’re calling on the government today to rethink this bill so that we can deliver those houses and that pipeline of major projects here in New South Wales, which is going to support the New South Wales economy.
Helen Waldron, AIG Head of NSW: We have thousands ofmembers across New South Wales, small, medium, and large, from a wide range ofsectors, all of whom would be impacted if this Bill goes through as it currently stands.
We have grave concerns, and I follow on from my colleagues who share those concerns. The other area that we would like to draw attention to is that New South Wales has signed up to harmonisation of work health and safety laws. There is a pending reviewon harmonisation oflaws, and this Bill would take us ahead of the game in New South Wales and implications on businesses that operate beyond New South Wales in other states. So along with my fellow colleagues behind me, we agree that this would have unintended consequences because there has been a complete lack of industry consultation and we don’t agree that it should go through without that consultation.
Simon Foster, COSBOA Director: This is more compliance and red tape for small businesses who are already under pressure from the cost of doing business and interest rate rise. We want them to take up digital platforms and use AI to improve productivity, but they are already concerned about cyber security and this goes against all the advice we are receiving about how to protect small businesses and business systems.
Putting the compliance load on to small businesses is going to have a very simple impact: they simply won’t take up the digitisation, they won’t use AI and they will continue with paper processes and as an economy we won’t get the productivity benefits that we want.
Journalist: Bran, you mentioned sensible amendments, the shooters have amendments in giving employers the ability to redact information and to prevent the unions from copying information that they see in digital work systems. Are those the safeguards that you’re endorsing, and how can that sort of curb the excesses of the Bill?
Bran: We welcome any attempt that has been made by members of the crossbench to try and water down the impacts of this Bill. There are some critical steps that we think are required in order to do that. The specific amendments that I would reference are proposals, first and foremost, to require a court to make a determination as to whether or not access should be granted or not.
Now, I do stress this was a point that the Premier spoke to a couple of days ago when he was talking about the safeguards that apply with respect to this Bill. He said at the time that that type of court intervention was already required. The simple point is that, as the bill is drafted at the moment, you don’t require court intervention unless you are an employer that denies unions access under this Bill, in that case, you’re going to find yourself in court for breach.
We’re saying, let’s pull that requirement up front as the Premier proposed, and make sure that a court has the say-so ultimately, as to whether or not access is fair and reasonable and whether or not the type of protections have been put in place that we think are important, like with respect to cybersecurity and privacy have been appropriately accounted for.
Another option in terms of amendment is to look at whether or not unions should be given a right to request an explanation as to how AI has been used. We are comfortable with these approaches. Ultimately, we want to see technology introduced, but we know there should be transparency associated with how that is done and we think the type of amendments that we propose is a simple, fair and reasonable way of doing that.
Journalist: What circumstances could employers say no or decline to answer a right to request access?
Bran: Well, what we’re proposing with our amendments is that employers will be given primarily an opportunity to appear before court in circumstances where access was sought and say, “Well, these are the concerns that we’ve got.” And then it would be a matter for a court to decide whether or not proposed access is reasonable or unreasonable and whether or not, as I mentioned earlier, those protections with respect to privacy or cybersecurity have been appropriately accounted for.
Journalist: The Government says at the moment that these laws apply to all other aspects of business, it’s just that these laws are adding AI into the rights that unions already have. So what is wrong with just adding an extra element, AI and digital systems, to unions existing access?
Bran: So that’s not correct. So what happens right now is that unions have the right to access the premises, yes, but what they don’t have the right to do is access the systems themselves and that is what this Bill affords, the right to access, in a practically unfettered way, all of those systems that contain HR information, payroll information, emails and so on.
All of that, and all proprietary information businesses have, all of that is accessible. Now, the government has said this is a mere clarification of the law, but the government has also said this is landmark legislation. It can’t be both and what we are saying is that, in this very clear that in this instance, this is a Bill that goes significantly beyond the existing powers that are set out in work health and safety legislation for union officials.
Journalist: Have you noticed any softening in the government’s position since you stared lobbying them?
Bran: The Government has been very clear that it intends to take this Bill through. We continue to make the case that there are important changes that are required. We will continue to make this case because it’s important we don’t take a step backwards here. We cannot afford to see this type oflegislation introduced in NewSouth Wales that has such broad and expansive implications, not just in this state, but for small, medium and large businesses right around the country.
The worst thing is that if this legislation sets a precedent for what’s to come.
Journalist: On the vein of over-regulating AI, being a disincentive for investment. Bill Gates has floated an AI tax that could be charged against AI companies that will be put towards supporting the industries that are being disrupted by AI. Is that a good idea?
Bran: The question raises a really interesting point, and that is, what do we do with respect to this transition? Now, at the moment, and I think most commentators would agree, we haven’t seen significant disruption as a consequence of artificial intelligence and its introduction to the workplace, certainly in terms of jobs.
There’s been speculation, there’s been much academic discussion to the effect that the type of changes that we’ve seen in the job market in recent times have been attributable to the type of cyclical trends that flow from the post-covid recovery environment.
But we know that people are concerned, they are apprehensive about what any type of new technological introduction looks like. And so, what we try and concentrate on is the immediate problems and challenges in front of us and how we can go back to best addressing them. We think transparency is important and that’s why we put forward the amendments that we’re talking about today.
We also think more important that in a changing world, in a changing environment in which so many different considerations are on people’s minds at any given time and with these types of technologies, the very best thing that we can do is give people the skillsets that they need to survive and ideally to thrive in this world.
Journalist: You mentioned that you want the Government to shelve this Bill, but do you concede that it’s a little bit too late for that?
Bran: Well, what we’ve seen here is a Bill that has had no consultation at all. Industry was not consulted with respect to the introduction of this Bill. We’ve seen that this Bill is now looking as though it’s being rushed through the Upper House.
This Bill should be sitting on the table for at least another few days, but it’s being rushed through, so the process here is very poor. We’re doing everything that we can to bring these issues to the Government’s attention and to the crossbench’s attention, and we hope that if we can continue to do that, we’ll see some significant changes made.
Journalist: This Bill first came about when they tacked it onto a workers comp bill tabled last year. Why has I guess this resistance come so late? Why weren’t you lobbying back then as well?
Bran: Well, we absolutely were and at that particular point in time, we indicated to the Government that we would not support that workers’ compensation legislation in circumstances where this component of the then Bill was tacked on to that workers compensation legislation, and as a result of that, we saw this particular part, this Digital Systems Bill taken off the Workers Compensation Bill and now it’s being brought forward as a standalone bill, and as you see we’ve been very vocal in our advocacy and will continue to be.
It’s an incredibly dangerous bill, it affords unions extraordinary powers, powers that go beyond what even what the police have in terms of access.
Journalist: Matthew, you mentioned the unprecedented opportunity for disruption of major projects and building. Can you explain what sort of information would be in employer systems that would give unions that ability, and is there any safeguard that could protect against that?
Matthew: Look, that’s right. As the Bill is written, no there’s not. What this does is it potentially gives unions access to the systems that support contractors to deliver major projects in this state. That includes sensitive commercial information that gives unions insight into the schedule of projects and vulnerable times in that project’s lifecycle. That raises the risk that we see of destructive activity by unions at those vulnerable times on site, at concrete pour, or the time tower crane is being erected.
You know, that’s a direct threat to the delivery of these projects, and it also makes it more difficult for industry to deliver these projects on time and on budget. We’ve got an $89 billion pipeline of major projects in New South Wales that’s going to drive economic activity in this state, but we need to ensure that those projects can be delivered on time, and delays cost money.
Journalist: Bran, do you mind if I just ask one question on something else? The ACTU wants workers’ wages to beat inflation. What would you say if that did happen?
Bran: Well, let me say from the outset, the number one thing that we all want, I think every Australian wants is for wages to go up. We want wages to go up, but we want them to go up sustainably.
And most importantly, we want wages to rise in a real wages way. So that means we want wages to rise such that people have more money in their back pockets after they’ve paid for their school fees, petrol, groceries or their rent or mortgages at the end of the week. But in order to deliver real wage growth, we need productivity gains.
So the single most important thing that we can do if we want to see wages rise and we want to see people get ahead is focus on driving productivity. The types of reforms that we’ve spoke about at length, taxation reform, reform with respect to workplace relations, the right reform, not reform like the reform in this Bill, changes to our planning systems, changes to make sure that ultimately business has the confidence to invest and the confidence as a country to attract investment from other countries and their companies too.