Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Bill 2008. As a new member in this place this year I was not around to hear and see the debates that took place over previous years. Yet the past is clearly gone, Work Choices is finished and the coalition accepts that the policy was rejected by the Australian people at the last federal election. This does not, however, mean that the Rudd government has been given a blank cheque to unleash militant unionism into the Australian economy. The coalition of course stand by our achievements on jobs, inflation within the band across the cycle, economic growth figures and the surplus that was created out of a dreadful legacy of Labor’s last term in government—which amounted to $96 billion of debt. But, not surprisingly, the government continues to ignore the facts of the past.

In regard to jobs growth, we know that over the term of the last government over 2.2 million jobs were created—1.2 million were full time and around 950,000 were part time. That was between March 1996 and November 2007. Even during the short period of Work Choices, 438,600 additional jobs were created. This fact directly contradicts the claims by the then Labor opposition and the union movement that Work Choices would result in mass sackings by unscrupulous bosses.

In October 2007 the unemployment rate was just 4.3 per cent, and it is always worth repeating that for 21 consecutive months the unemployment rate was below five per cent under the previous government—in direct contrast to the rate under the previous Labor government, which peaked at 10.9 per cent. If you look at any of the employment figures, they show that more people got jobs under the coalition. There is no doubt that this was largely the result of the various reforms of the industrial relations system introduced under the Howard government. It seems like a distant fond memory now as we contemplate the future—with unemployment predicted to rise by 200,000, which means roughly about 1,300-odd jobs per electorate; inflation at five per cent; growth in the one per cent band and a surplus that may still exist in 2009, yet that is looking increasingly unlikely. So members of the former government should remain proud of their record.

The other thing that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations enjoys talking about is how wages were trashed by the previous government’s laws. The only trouble with this is that real wages continued to increase. There was a 20.8 per cent increase in real wages over the period of the coalition government—easily contrasted with the record of the previous Labor government of a 1.8 per cent decrease. So the facts are that even under Work Choices wages grew by more than under the previous Labor government.

In spite of what was done and where this country stood in these important areas of real economics, the Australian people still decided that there would be a change of government last year. As part of that decision at the election there is little doubt that some Australians voted on the basis of dissatisfaction with the former government’s industrial relations changes. That is what prompted the Leader of the Opposition to say that we accept the government’s mandate for workplace relations—a mandate for those policies that were taken to the Australian people—but soon I will get to the departures from Labor policy that we are now seeing.

I would also say that although the coalition has accepted the concept of a mandate in this case, the concept of a mandate was always lost on the Labor Party during the years of the previous government. That was most evident during the introduction of the overhaul of the Australian taxation system in 2000. This was despite it being a pivotal part of the coalition’s policy manifesto for the 1998 election. Unfortunately, the Labor opposition did not respect that electoral mandate. It is worth noting that during the Hawke-Keating governments the coalition respected their mandates and supported a number of significant economic reforms.

I will move onto the core of what the government says this legislation is all about. What we have constantly heard from the minister is the fear and uncertainty that some Australians had of holding onto their jobs under the last government. As previous speakers from this side have said, this legislation and this government will be judged by the maintenance of existing jobs and the growing of more jobs over this term of government.

In Western Australia the previous industrial relations regime did not have a negative effect on my election. In Western Australia the people were used to seeing the public face of militant unions, embodied by the Secretary of the CFMEU, Kevin Reynolds. They saw the CFMEU bolster their protest-march numbers by bringing their children along on the hot days of early 2007. Perhaps what they did not see was the top-of-the-line Range Rover that Kevin Reynolds had as his vehicle. I contrast this with photos I have seen of him in the past, when he was happy, on one occasion, to have a photo taken in Cuba where he was talking up socialism with the comrades. Yet these days he enjoys the trappings of the exalted position of secretary of the union, with a vehicle of a new value of around $125,000. Some may say that such a luxury vehicle was just a one-off—a one-off, just like his apartment at the Raffles Hotel site, which was, apparently, merely the result of good investments! I hear there was great industrial harmony on the site of the Raffles Hotel development, which no doubt led to the apartment being completed and available at the right price. Kevin Reynolds is clearly the epitome of the battling worker! Although some may say that I digress, this remains very relevant.

Let us look at the changes, under this bill, to the right of entry. In August 2007 the now Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister issued a joint press release highlighting that ‘federal Labor will maintain the existing right of entry provisions’. In an attempt to appease the business lobby, the Deputy Prime Minister told the Master Builders Association that Labor had promised to retain the current right of entry framework and that this promise too would be kept. The government has no credibility when it comes to criticising the coalition on non-core promises, because what was said was that they would maintain the existing right of entry conditions. There was no mention of them being increased, decreased or having extra areas added; they spoke of maintenance of the existing arrangements.

Under this legislation Kevin Reynolds will be able to view the company records of non-union-members on the work sites of Western Australia. EBAs can also include a range of right of entry terms across different issues. On Thursday 27 November the West Australian newspaper reported that union officials would be able, after giving 24-hours notice, to inspect and copy the time and wage records of both union and non-union employees. This means free access to time and wage records. There was a time when there was still some protection, some privacy in this country, but it looks as if that is now being legislated out, through this bill, by the Rudd government. Strangely, there has been silence by the Australian Council of Civil Liberties in relation to this. Surely this would represent an intrusion on individual privacy by union officials.

It has also been said that union officials can initiate meetings during meals and other breaks in order to conduct recruitment activities. Is that true? So if this legislation is not amended, the lunch rooms and indeed the lunch breaks in this country will no longer be sacrosanct. Eating a sandwich will have to be on the run, because sitting down may involve an unsolicited conversation where someone can lawfully hassle you to join the union. Instead of asking whether you want fries with that, they may just ask you if you want an industry superannuation fund or insurance with that union membership.

Of course while employers are expressing that sort of concern, the counterpoint to that comes from the CFMEU national secretary who is quoted by the West Australian newspaper as saying, ‘A few noisy, extreme employer groups shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what’s fair and just in this country.’ No doubt the national secretary has in mind who should and who already has dictated what is fair in this country. I would imagine that the national secretaries of many unions have a great deal of influence in this place—certainly not on this side, but without doubt they have influence on the other side. You need only look back through Hansard at the first speeches to know who was anointed by the powerful unions. Those that owe their place here or in the other place, to the nod or the imprimatur of a union, owe their souls to those same powerbrokers. Those that were replaced in preselections for the 2007 election by union heavyweights—and I mention the electorates of Maribyrnong and Charlton—know that they were on the wrong side of the numbers. This means that those who remain know that they are obliged to toe the line as well, as directed by the unions that control the numbers for their preselections. In the safe Labor seats, our opponents know who their main constituents really are—that is, the unions. Preselection, campaign contributions and booth workers are provided for those who toe the line. Oblivion awaits those that are not as well connected, and the preselections before the 2007 election, as I stated, saw the premature retirement of a number of the less well connected.

The next issue I would like to cover is the matter of pattern bargaining. Pattern bargaining is where unions seek to have a list of claims won across a number of industries or businesses, regardless of the individual businesses’ ability to pay. Of course the minister rejects that this bill will see a return to pattern bargaining because, she has told us, strikes to back such claims would be prevented. Yet a strike is just one weapon in the union arsenal. The point remains that this bill will actually allow the attempt to achieve a pattern bargain. We should also never forget that at the end of the process the pattern can be achieved if the government’s Fair Work Australia decides to impose a settlement. This pattern bargaining is possible because multi-employer bargaining has been allowed under this bill, as the government says, in order to assist lower paid workers. Yet it is difficult to really determine where the threshold is for the term ‘lower paid’. This will be a key point in addressing the need for amendments to this bill, when it comes to consideration of it in the other place, as the problems with pattern bargaining may still arise.

I reiterate that businesses have to have an ability to pay, otherwise we may see businesses fail and then everyone loses their jobs. Indeed, the story on the front page of the Australian highlights this fact. Owner of Cowra Meat Processors, Chris Cummins, is noted as highlighting his concerns that pattern bargaining would be highly detrimental to his operations. The government’s proposed industrial relations reforms may force Mr Cummins to close his business as a result. How would that make work fairer for his employees?

In May of last year the minister was quoted as saying:

Pattern bargaining, in the sense of having industry-wide action, is unlawful under Labor’s Forward with Fairness plans.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation was quoted as saying:

We do not accept that pattern bargaining is legitimate.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts commented:

Once we’re in we will change it all.

That rings true. Pattern bargaining is another policy detail which did not form part of Labor’s electoral mandate. Where was the reintroduction of pattern bargaining mentioned in their campaign manifesto? You can go through it with a magnifying glass all you want but you will never find it.

Of course, the issue of individual agreements was dealt with by the parliament earlier in the year. AWAs can no longer be made, yet I note that individual statutory agreements still remain in a form. I wonder how the focused hatred of the unions and their federal government can come to terms with that anomaly. I suppose that pragmatism outweighed ideology in an attempt to keep businesses on side. It may be worth while to note that by the end of July 2007 there were approximately 811,000 AWAs in operation, indicating that they were not as unpopular as was claimed by Labor and the unions.

I, like many of my colleagues, have received emails as part of a concerted union campaign to get the government to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. No doubt we have seen the television advertisements as well, decrying the fact that those who commit unlawful practices would actually be punished for their actions. Perish that thought! I have suffered under the withering onslaught of 15 emails, yet somehow I think I can withstand it. There are many justifications as to why the ABCC should be left as it currently stands. Indeed, it was a significant factor behind an economic welfare gain of $5.1 billion to the community and a 10 per cent increase in industry productivity. It also led to a significant reduction in sector industrial disputations by an astounding 91.9 per cent. The number of working days lost per 1,000 employees in Australia was also slashed from a high of 104.6 under the Keating government to just 0.8 under the Howard government. This represents the lowest quarterly rate ever recorded by the ABS. Why would you get rid of something that clearly works?

Some members on the opposite side of the House may question, and have questioned, how the ABCC is relevant to this bill. It is directly relevant as this bill plans to weaken it by stealth by allowing unions to have access to a vastly increased number of workplaces. The extent to which this will occur as a result of this legislation was also not mentioned by Labor prior to the 2007 election. It is not at all surprising that Labor would break their electoral promises in relation to industrial relations, considering where their true interests lie. Labor do not govern for all Australians as they may claim but, in fact, for only a small minority of the population bound by the same ideology.

As noted by the editorial in the West Australian on Wednesday, 26 November:

In tough economic times, the last thing we need is an emphasis on ideology rather than individual enterprise and a climate in which militant unionists can feel empowered to pursue an aggressive agenda.

This emphasis on ideology is exactly what this Labor government are doing. This editorial also conveys the strong apprehension of Western Australians towards the Rudd government’s industrial relations legislation. As mentioned earlier it is not surprising, considering that the only two seats won from the Labor Party by the Liberal Party, including my electorate of Cowan, which I am honoured to represent, are in Western Australia. My state saw firsthand the damage caused by rampant militant unionists who were responsible for delays in critical infrastructure projects, including the former Carpenter Labor state government’s pet project, the Perth to Mandurah railway line. Comments by union leader Joe McDonald prior to last year’s election, when he said, ‘We’re coming back,’ were indeed a forewarning of things to come under a Labor government fixated on ideology to appease their campaign financiers in the union movement. Western Australians do not wish our state to return to the soft-gloves approach favoured by the Rudd government, and there is undoubtedly a correlation between the actions of Reynolds and Co. and the strong preference for the coalition in Western Australia.

During the economic prosperous times experienced under the Howard government, Western Australia was in many respects the engine room of the Australian economy. Whether this will continue during the economically uncertain times we now face, as well as a result of Fair Work Australia, remains to be seen. I, for one, hope that this is the case, but I do have significant concerns in this regard. This view is shared by Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, who has noted that the laws had the potential to damage the economy. Ridout is often quoted by the Prime Minister during ministerial statement time, which we previously knew as question time. However, I cannot help but notice that this view has been completely ignored by the government on this occasion.

For those opposite, Work Choices represented an attempt by the Howard government to abolish the union movement. This could not be further from the truth. We do not begrudge those Australians who wish to be members of a union. Individual choice is, of course, a strong Liberal value which I strongly advocate. The coalition recognises the unions’ previous role as guardians of workplace rights for ordinary Australians. Today’s unions, however, are a far cry from those in days long past. What we do have a problem with is when the selfish and narrow-minded behaviour of some militant unions reduces the capacity of Australian industry to be more productive and thus more prosperous, yet this is exactly what the Fair Work Bill would do if passed in full.

The coalition will not prevent the government from passing this bill. However, we reserve the right to make amendments to it in the interests of the Australian economy and to prevent the detrimental impacts it would have on jobs and job creation if this legislation were passed in its current form. I am extremely proud of the coalition’s record with regard to employment under the previous government. We will do everything we can to preserve this important legacy into the future because without jobs there can be no prosperity for Australians.

See this speech in context