Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I totally reject the amendment put forward by the member for Lalor suggesting that the government’s industrial relations laws are extreme. In fact, our legislation is quite moderate, forward thinking and progressive. As members opposite would be aware, the union movement have dominated the Labor Party since 1891 under the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine. On that occasion, the union members said to the Labor Party, ‘You’ll do what we tell you.’ In the famous event of the 36 faceless men with Calwell and Menzies, we well recall that the federal executive of the union movement told the Labor Party what to do.

In 2007 we have a similar situation. We have Dean Mighell of the Electrical Trades Union—we talked about him today; Greg Combet, ACTU secretary; Sharan Burrow, ACTU president; Bill Shorten; Dougie Cameron, senator elect; and Richard Marles, branch stacker extraordinaire and assistant secretary of the ACTU, and the member for Throsby has a hotline as well to these union personnel. They all tell the Labor Party what to do. We have the unions writing industrial relations policy for the Labor Party. The member for Lalor, the shadow spokesman, wrote their policy and the Christian socialist Leader of the Opposition said he was not familiar with the details. We have these amendments drafted in a similar fashion.

We have a situation with the unions, which are dominating the policy, where union membership has been in decline. The union members are voting with their feet. In 1976, 51 per cent of the workforce was in the union movement. By 1994, 40 per cent of the workforce was unionised. By 2006, we had 22 per cent of the workforce unionised and it was only 16 per cent in the private sector. Why are the workers leaving the unions? I would suggest to you it is that they have jobs and higher pay under the Howard government. Yet we have a situation here in the parliament where the union movement, with such small representation, dominates the policy. These so-called extreme laws have created 326,000 new jobs since March 2006 and 85 per cent of them are full-time jobs.

A further amendment suggests that the law has caused the pay and conditions of individuals on Australian workplace agreements to be cut. The evidence is that wages have increased and members opposite are aware of that. Wages under AWAs are nine per cent higher than under collective agreements and 94 per cent higher than under the award rates. What is the Labor Party standing for in this legislation? Are they returning to the situation where there were 4,000 awards? Do they want that complexity in the industrial relations system? In their policy, Fair Work Australia, which is a bit unclear, are they suggesting one-stop shops in the suburbs? That is unconstitutional, it is quite clear they would be run by union officials and it would be unfair. Where does that leave the employers and workers in Australia? The policy also recommends bargaining fees. Dean Mighell is delighted with this bargaining fee proposal because that will mean union fees for his union. Bargaining fees force compulsory unionism on Australian workers.

As far as I can ascertain that is the position of the shadow minister and those opposite. They are in a position where they are returning to 1904 arbitration commission type attitudes. They want to throw out the current legislation lock, stock and barrel; the shadow minister said that here in the parliament today. They want turn the clock back to the 19th century. They have no position. They have some amendments here that try to reinforce their position. They agree with the bill, they are going to vote for it and yet they have these amendments here which, if you read the fine detail, really mean nothing. They are turning the future into the past. They have no proposition. The amendments stand for nothing. They stand condemned.

See this speech in context