Are Australia’s New Workplace Laws Built on Distrust of Small Business Owners?

Who is really shaping these reforms?

This leads to a politically sensitive, but essential question. Who is driving the shape and pace of these changes?

Unions have strongly backed the Closing Loopholes package and related reforms. Public statements celebrate new rights for labour-hire workers, casuals, gig workers, and workplace delegates. They frame the laws as overdue corrections that limit business flexibility but increase fairness.

Employer groups tell a different story. They warn of sweeping regulation, increased union power, and long-term harm to productivity and investment. Independent think tanks argue that some measures will close opportunities and loopholes.

Small business sits awkwardly between these narratives. It is rarely the villain in union campaigns focused on multinational labour-hire firms. It is also infrequently the intended beneficiary of union bargaining power. In many cases, micro and small firms are caught under the same net as large corporates, without the resources to cope.

Seen from that angle, the regulatory burden on Australian small businesses can look less like a targeted response to genuine risk and more like collateral damage in a larger contest between big business, unions and government.

Control, trust and the missing belief in small business

There is a deeper cultural issue at stake.

When government and unions design more detailed rules, they may believe they are addressing the worst behaviour at the margins. Yet the message that reaches small owners is different. It suggests that systems, and those who run them, are trusted more than individual judgment. It encourages workers to view formal complaints and external mechanisms as the primary means of resolving many issues.

Small businesses thrive on relationships, reputation, and personal trust. The regulatory burden on Australian small businesses can unintentionally undermine that trust by inserting formal processes between people who once solved problems face-to-face.

This does not mean scrapping hard-won protections. It does mean asking whether every problem should be answered with more regulation, or whether some issues are better addressed through education, incentives and practical support.

Economic uncertainty and the cost of getting this wrong

The timing of these reforms matters. Globally, uncertainty is high. Supply chains remain fragile. Geopolitical risks are elevated. Interest rates have risen, and many households feel cost-of-living pressure.

In that environment, most economists agree that private investment and job creation are crucial. In Australia, small businesses account for a large share of private sector employment and are often the first to hire when conditions improve.

Yet at the very moment their energy and risk appetite are most needed, the regulatory burden on Australian small businesses has surged. Owners are now expected to be compliance experts while they fight to survive.

Surveys by major business groups show the impact. In 2024, almost half of small business owners reported considering shutting down in the previous year, with red tape and regulatory complexity cited as key pressures.

If the barometer for a strong community is strong small businesses, these are worrying signals.

Small business, employment and community safety

There is another dimension that receives less attention in workplace debates.

Research in criminology has repeatedly found a strong inverse relationship between employment and crime at the individual level. When people have access to stable, legal work, rates of offending tend to fall.

Small businesses are often where that first chance appears. They hire apprentices, school leavers and people returning to work. They give opportunities that big corporations might see as too risky.

When the regulatory burden on Australian small businesses becomes too heavy, owners hire fewer staff or delay replacing them. Over time, that can translate into fewer legitimate jobs, especially in regional and outer suburban communities. The link is not automatic or straightforward, but policymakers who care about serious crime cannot ignore the connection between broad employment and social stability.

Where small businesses thrive, there is more local employment. Where local employment grows, there is usually less desperation. When desperation falls, the conditions that drive many serious crimes weaken. It is at least reasonable to ask whether increasing compliance pressure on micro employers may, unintentionally, make long-term crime prevention harder.

Is the government creating its own problems?

When you look at the broader picture, another question emerges.

By dramatically increasing the regulatory burden on Australian small businesses in a short period, is the government solving problems, or quietly creating new ones?

If owners close or stop hiring, unemployment rises. If unemployment increases, demand for government support and policing rises. If communities see main streets full of empty shops, trust in institutions falls. The initial intent may have been protection. The long-term effects could include higher welfare costs, weaker local economies, and greater social tension.

This is not an argument for a free-for-all. It is a call for proportionality and for genuine partnership. Regulation should protect people from genuine harm. It should not suffocate the operators who create jobs, train young people and keep local economies alive.

A political question that will not go away

Elections are rarely won on a single issue. Even so, the way the government handles the regulatory burden on Australian small businesses may become a quiet deciding factor in the next cycle.

Small business owners vote. Their staff and families vote. Suppliers and communities that depend on their success also vote. When nearly half of them say they have considered closing in the past year, that is more than a statistical detail. It is a dashboard warning light.

If owners conclude that the government does not understand their reality, or worse, does not trust them, frustration can harden into political momentum. On the other hand, if the government can show that it values small enterprises, simplifies compliance and creates space for growth, that momentum can shift.

The choice is not between workers and small businesses. It is between a regulatory model that treats honest operators as partners and one that treats them as potential offenders to be closely managed.