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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has also been much talk opposite about wages, how this bill will lead to higher wages outcomes and how modern awards, as outlined within the bill, will somehow improve wage outcomes. I also find that hard to accept, as real wages increased by over 20 per cent in the life of the previous government under the current system—and then the Work Choices system, of course—as opposed to a fall in the last Labor government. We see legislation before us today which will return us not just to the previous circumstances but further than the previous circumstances.

I also find it difficult to accept the provisions in this bill that give so much power to unions at a time when less than 25 per cent of our workforce are union members—and, of course, much less in the private sector. This legislation certainly addresses some concerns that were raised at the previous election, but we were promised by the Deputy Prime Minister that right of entry powers for unions would be retained. While this has occurred, ‘retention’ in the existing rules is something of a misnomer and is cosmetic at best. I think that when you examine the detail of this legislation before us the actual effect is to give unions the best organising conditions that they have seen for decades—something which, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister has been quoted as saying to the Labor caucus in recent times.

Unions can now enter a workplace that uses AWAs, ITEAs or non-union collective agreements, whereas before they could not. One or several unions can now enter workplaces that use an agreement made with another union, and before, of course, they could not. Unions can now access non-union-member records, and before they could not. Unions can walk into any workplace, even where they have no members, and before they could not. Restrictions on where unions could hold meetings have been loosened. Unions can now bargain with an employer about the right of entry, and before they could not. Unions are now default bargaining agents, and before they were not. Unions are likely to be automatic parties to most new enterprise agreements, and before they were not. Unions get an automatic and privileged seat at the bargaining table, with disproportionate powers, and before they did not. Restrictions on who can go to the so-called industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, favour those represented by a union. So how can it really be said that this bill retains right of entry provisions when its detail is obviously tilted towards paying off Labor’s debt to the union movement from the last election? There are but a handful of measures left in this bill that will allow a workplace to keep out the unions where they are not wanted. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Bennelong, speaks of freedom of association. The parliamentary secretary has the gall to speak of freedom of association when we see that there are just a handful of measures left in the bill that will allow a workplace to keep out a union when the union is not wanted.

There is no doubt that we see a deviation from election promises, and in this place we have seen much made in the last year of keeping to election promises. In this bill before the House, there is no doubt that the balance is swung heavily back in favour of the unions, something that was not voted for, or sought by, the Australian people. There is no mandate for many provisions of this bill, including the return of compulsory arbitration. One of the real tests of this government and its industrial relations policies is obviously going to be how benchmarks like employment and real wages fare in coming years. If we look at some of the reaction to the announcement of this legislation from people who are close to the union movement, we can see some of the things that I am talking about here. Already since the election of the Rudd government we have seen, for example, a significant increase in industrial disputes over the past year. Disputes have significantly increased, from 36 in the December 2007 quarter to 60 in the June 2008 quarter. Working days lost due to industrial action have increased over the same period from 24,000 to 86,000. These are very worrying figures given the current challenges that we face.

Following the introduction of this bill into the House last week:

Louise Tarrant, the national secretary of the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, said the Fair Work bill would be a failure if it did not deliver higher wages for low-paid workers.

Ms Tarrant said the bill “gives us the facility to try to get some sector-wide solutions”. “There is a very compelling logic as to why you want an industry-wide settlement (in industries such as childcare, cleaning, hotels, and security),” she told The Australian.

Indeed, I think that is a very revealing reaction from a prominent union organiser to the provisions of this bill that is before the House—’sector-wide solutions’. It indicates a return to pattern bargaining in industries such as child care. Ms Tarrant, perhaps, could not have picked a worse first example of where we need sector-wide labour solutions when we are looking at the closure of dozens upon dozens of childcare centres, including in my own electorate of Mitchell, where up to six or seven ABC centres are closing as a result of the problems that they have had. Sector-wide solutions do not exist. If we listen to the owner of the Cowra abattoir, he says that no two businesses are the same, and of course he has that just about right.

So the test of this bill before the House today is going to be in the benchmarks like employment and real wages, what happens to unemployment and how the levels of strikes and disputations rise in what we are going to see as difficult economic times. It is, of course, disturbing that one union member in a workplace can give a union unfettered power to access that workplace and the personal records of so many employees even if the employees do not want it.

I heard the member for Canberra, speaking on this bill, say that the unions are simply the bogeymen in the minds of the opposition. Well, I would say in response to the member for Canberra that, with the provisions in this bill that will allow unions unfettered access to workplaces, the bogeymen will not be just in our minds anymore. The bogeymen will be in the workplaces of those workers who do not want them there. They will be in every workplace, because this legislation, if passed, will allow them to be.

While the government may have a mandate to remove Work Choices—and indeed the opposition have indicated that Work Choices is now no longer coalition policy; it is dead as an issue with us—this legislation does breach commitments given by the government at the election because it adds so many components that they know will return union power to the Australian workplace relations system. That will mean unprecedented levels of union power and unprecedented conditions for unions to organise. That will indeed be a retrograde step, and that is why we in this place ought to seek to amend those provisions in another place.

As I said, while the government may have been given a mandate to remove Work Choices, they have gone too far with some elements of this legislation, and I believe those elements should be sent to another place to be reconsidered. Otherwise, it will be the case that those bogeymen are no longer just in the minds of the opposition; they will be real. They will be in the workplaces of ordinary Australians, and I think that when the ordinary workers of this country are confronted with the fact that those conditions for unions to organise are back we will see a different attitude prevail with regard to workplace relations in Australia.

See this speech in context