Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In the current economic climate—with business confidence in tatters, with unemployment rising and with the historic challenges that we face in the financial markets—and in the investment climate generally, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that is being expressed by many commentators and other people that it is strange indeed for us to be adding, following an unprecedented era of economic growth and development, this type of reform to that series of challenges. It is indeed a risk that we may come to regret in this place.

If we examine what happened in the previous era of government, the 13 years of the Howard government—an era that saw the lowest unemployment rate in 33 years, a youth participation rate that ranked second amongst OECD countries, a real increase in wages over and above inflation of nearly 22 per cent and strikes and disputations at historic lows—we come to see that the current government have difficulty in defining what the problem is that they are trying to fix. What is it that they are trying to solve with the legislation that they have put before us?

The parliamentary secretary and member for Bennelong outlined that social inclusion was her priority. I would maintain that, if you are seeking social inclusion, it is very hard to be included in society if you do not have a job. It is very hard to participate in society when you do not have the ability to go to work, earn a living and provide for your family. We need to be saying—and I think the parliamentary secretary and member for Bennelong left out a few yeses—yes to jobs, low disputations and record low levels of industrial disputes and no to the return of the unions into every workplace in the country.

It is hard to see how many provisions of the Fair Work Bill 2008, which are additions to the election commitments that were given by the government prior to the election, will benefit the employment chances of ordinary Australians. The unions are enjoying a major comeback from the provisions of this view and at this time and in the current climate this may run contrary to the interests of the Australian people. If you ask the Australian people whether they voted for a return of unfettered union influence into every workplace, that is certainly not something that was proposed at the election and not something that people voted for and sought to achieve.

We are seeing a challenge here to the best interests of the economy, the jobs of Australians and the ongoing prosperity of Australian families. Whether you are a pro-union person or a person who has concerns about organised labour, there is a swinging back of the balance in favour of the unions out of this legislation. In the hidden provisions of this bill there is a return of things like pattern bargaining and the effective entry to any workplace that a union chooses to enter. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Bennelong, confirms that when she says that a union would have the right to access a workplace regardless of whether they had union members there or not. I think it was a footnote to her speech, but it is quite an outrageous contention that a union have the right to enter a workplace where they have no union members and seek access to the records and information of people that want no truck with being involved in a union.

If we look at some prominent cases from prior to the election, the Cowra abattoir is a very good example of an enterprise that had a problem with the previous Work Choices legislation and many of the attempts by the Howard government to alter and ameliorate some of those concerns, such as the fairness test, were introduced to resolve some of those concerns. However, it is reported today in the Australian that the Cowra abattoir has new concerns about further industrial relations changes in Australia and many of the things that we are facing here in this bill before us tonight. The owner, who is a former union organiser for the abattoir, Mr Cummins, has come forward and said that he is now concerned about pattern bargaining within his sector and how that may have the capacity to put his new business out of business. He says:

We already pay more than award (wages); we pay for a lot of things we don’t have to … We even pay bonuses. (But) there’s no two abattoirs that are the same. That additional cost to any business could tip them over, it’s not viable.

That is from the mouth of a former union organiser. I could not have put it better myself. The reintroduction of things like pattern bargaining across our economy at such a difficult time could well tip many businesses over the edge. That will lead to higher unemployment and the reluctance of many employers to take on more employees.

This is not a concern that is unique to the Cowra abattoir. There are many businesses and business groups, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who have severe concerns over the pattern bargaining provisions within the bill before us today. One of the main threats that is posed in the Fair Work Bill is to the employment prospects of many Australians. We know that in the life of the last Labor government a million Australians were out of work. We also know that the OECD has forecast that 200,000 Australians will lose their jobs by 2010 regardless of whether we pass this bill before the House or not. When the provisions of this bill are implemented, that may rise. If we destabilise the climate in the economy further by radical industrial relations reform, we may add to that burden of unemployment.

Last week we had the extraordinary claim in this place that the opposition did not have a policy on jobs, that we think that nothing should be done to protect jobs, to protect families and to protect households. There is nothing more that we could have done than provide the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years, to what economists regard as full employment at four per cent. I accept the contention from many economists that unemployment is directly affected by labour relations practices and the labour market and, if you are seeking to ensure that you have a stable labour market, the way to do that is not to pass legislation which seeks to return organised labour to the fore of economic disputation at a time when you have a severe financial crisis.

This weekend we had the Rudd government’s ridiculous attempts to pass the buck on job creation to the states, and I think this is a product of the fact that somebody in the government understands that unemployment is going to be affected by this bill. You had billions of dollars being handed to state governments with the by-line, ‘Go and create jobs.’ They are supposed to create 133,000 jobs—an arbitrary figure. These sorts of airy-fairy instructions to go and create jobs represent the best that the Rudd government can come up with in the face of rising unemployment. The OECD has forecast that 200,000 Australians will lose their jobs by 2010. To my mind, this instruction to the state governments to go and create jobs with the money that the federal government is providing is a false instruction.

With this bill we are facing unfettered union access to workplaces and a return to pattern bargaining. High levels of disputation must surely follow from such changes to the law. If we look at what is behind this instruction to the states to go and create jobs, it seems that it must be to try and ameliorate the impact that they know will occur from unfettered union access to workplaces: an increase in the levels of disputation, which have been at such historic lows. But there is a problem with that philosophy: the government cannot create the jobs the economy needs and any attempt to do so will distort the market further and make it harder for businesses and individuals.

In New South Wales we have more public sector workers than we have ever had, but if you went to an ordinary citizen in New South Wales and said, ‘Are you getting better outcomes from the bureaucracy that has more workers than at any point in New South Wales history?’ you would be laughed out of town. Indeed, we have seen the prominent example of railway workers who have been going to work for 12 months, sitting in front of televisions and playing cards and who finally have come forward and said, ‘We just want work to do; give us work to do.’ That is how you get a problem when you say to governments, ‘Go and create jobs.’ I do not think it is an instruction that will result in higher employment levels within our country.

Businesses are certainly under a crippling regime of taxes in New South Wales. If we want to do something to encourage employment, instead of changing and interfering with our industrial relations system, which has led to record low unemployment and levels of industrial disputation, we should be doing something to alleviate the taxation burden on small business. Payroll taxes in states cripple employment prospects. This government’s message seems to be: ‘Let’s take all this money from people. Let’s take it off through income taxes, the GST and a whole raft of federal and state government taxes. Let’s take it from entrepreneurs and small business people, the people who create jobs and employ people and the doers in our society. Then we’re going to reissue it to the likes of the New South Wales state government with the cheap and tawdry line that this will somehow create jobs.’ There is no doubt that that is a sham.

See this speech in context