Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament again as the member for Ryan on the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009, and cognate bill, because I know it is of deep interest to the constituents in the western suburbs of Brisbane who I proudly represent.

In the parliament last week, I spoke on a piece of legislation. In that presentation, I referred to the importance of small, medium and large businesses in this country, because they are the ones that create wealth. They are the ones that seek to employ Australians across this country. I mentioned that I come from a small business background to the extent that my parents owned a little corner store—a very small business. They were a young couple when they started out, and they worked their backsides off to create wealth not only for their family and for their community but for others they employed.

I know this is of fundamental importance to those who support the coalition and especially to those who are in business, at the coalface—those who are at the pointy end and who create wealth. I refer to the small and medium as well as the large businesses. They are the engine of our prosperity. I say again—very clearly and very unequivocally, for the record—because the people of Ryan would want me to say so, that businesses create wealth. Businesses create prosperity. It is not the Public Service; it is not bureaucracy; it is not governments—governments should get out of the way as far as they can.

Why is all that relevant to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill? It is very relevant, because this bill and the amendments involved constitute a substantial hurdle to creating wealth. They play a substantial part in blocking the ability of small businesses in particular—medium sized businesses as well—to employ people, to expand, to enlarge and to increase their economic activities, which, of course, employ people. How does that work? Well, clearly, if mum and dad run a small business or if a handful of people are in partnership and running a business and they have got the unions knocking on their door trying to give union members greater access, that is going to very significantly discourage the owners of those small and medium sized businesses from taking on more people. Entrepreneurs and small business owners and operators want to get on with the business of creating wealth. They do not want to be dealing with unions. They do not want to be dealing with union thugs who are, effectively, trying to take control of these businesses.

This bill repeals the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and renames it the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. It makes transitional provisions to move employers, employees and organisations from the old act to this new system. The Fair Work Bill 2009 gives effect to state referrals of power relating to the Fair Work Bill and the proposed creation of a national workplace relations system. The bill was supposedly designed to create new provisions that make it simpler and easier for state and federal unions to operate across multiple jurisdictions. On the surface, this sounds nice but, effectively, it is to make it easier for state and federal unions to encroach further on workplaces across this country.

We all know that union membership in this country is at about 14 per cent in the private sector. This reflects, I think, the real views of Australians that the role of the unions should not be dominant in the architecture of our workplaces. I am certainly one who says that there is a role for unions in this country. They have an important place in the architecture of this country. But, equally, we have got to understand that unions should not be dominant. They should not be ruling what small business entrepreneurs have done in putting up their own capital and putting risk on the table. It is they, not union members, who should be making the ultimate decisions as to the course that their business takes.

This transitional legislation will also provide for a start to the new bargaining system, to start with a clean slate. What this means is that any negotiations that are still pending on 30 June will have to begin again. What that means, as well, is that they will be wiping away any continuing protection that would have otherwise existed. Long-running industrial campaigns will have to be restarted. We have all seen the example of Telstra. This means greater cost to the employer and, at the end of the day, greater penalties upon the consumers of Telstra services.

The bill also includes a new provision that makes it simpler and easier for federal and state unions to operate across multiple jurisdictions. This is of great concern to employers because it allows unions the potential to have a deeper and wider place in the workplaces of those businesses. Gone are the days of allowing employers and employees to establish arrangements which suit them. For me, it defies understanding that employers and employees would not be able to come to some kind of arrangement that is in the interests of those stakeholders. Why you need a third party to get involved when neither stakeholder, the employer and the employee, want a third party involved just boggles the mind. What that is saying to employees is that they are not smart enough, they are not able enough, they are not prudent enough, knowing their skills, that they will not be able to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to them and which allows the business to operate as an ongoing concern, which allows the business to continue as an economic entity which will protect that job and related jobs.

So really the ultimate consequence of this new Fair Work Act is to give unions a chair at the bargaining table, irrespective of the wishes, perhaps, of the majority of workers. That, again, is a very significant point. I know that the business owners of Ryan, the employees of Ryan, will be fully aware that that is a point that needs to be made. To allow unions a chair at a bargaining table between employees and someone who has put up their own capital, put up their own risk, and decided to employ people, is just something that cannot be understood by the constituents of Ryan. Under this legislation it will be difficult for employers to make agreements with their employees without approval by the unions that have members employed by the employer—again, as I said, regardless of the wishes of the majority of employees. That is something that I will certainly be letting the chambers of commerce know about in the Ryan electorate—the centenary chamber of commerce in particular, a very successful chamber of commerce that promotes the economic activities of its members and tries to expand opportunities for work in the centenary suburbs of my electorate.

I want to talk about the amendments that enable states to refer matters to the Commonwealth for the purposes of establishing a national workplace relations system. This bill makes transitional arrangements for Victorian employees that are currently covered by the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The schedule also makes amendments to certain other Commonwealth legislation to provide clarity and consistency with respect to the operation of that legislation in the new federal workplace relations system established by the Fair Work Act. Fair Work Australia, which will replace the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, will be able to arbitrate where there is industrial action and it considers the action is causing significant economic harm to either the employer or the employees. This means that, should employees go on strike for a prolonged period of time and no agreement can be reached, they can probably expect to get an arbitrated settlement. Removing employers’ rights to determine what they can afford to pay their workers is also a significant consequence.

To add to the uncertainty for employers, the government has left some pretty significant grey areas in the legislation which are open for interpretation. I would suggest that this is something that the unions are going to try and exploit for their influence. We all know that just in the past few days the unions have been trying to heavy the government again. I notice that in the front page article of today’s Australian, ‘Union fury at Julia Gillard’s backdown’, the union heavyweights are flexing their muscles and showing who is boss. We know that the union movement contributed enormously to the campaign coffers of the Australian Labor Party at the last election. There is of course no hiding their enormous financial wealth and their enormous financial contribution to Mr Rudd winning government. So this is payback time. The unions want to call in their favours now. They are in the position where they have enormous influence. They are ensuring that their voice is heard. They are at the table. We read that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are flying to Brisbane to speak at a congress there. Who knows whether they will get the warmth of a union handshake or an artificial handshake. Clearly the regard that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have for the union movement, or the acknowledgement of their influence, is reflected in them flying to Brisbane this week to speak at a congress.

The reality is that the unions are flexing their muscles. The people of Ryan certainly know that it is completely inappropriate for them to flex their muscles in the workplaces of small and medium-sized businesses in the Ryan electorate. I am of the view, and certainly the overwhelming majority of businesses in the Ryan electorate are, that there is no need whatsoever for centralised solutions. There is no need whatsoever for unions to be overbearing and to take a dominant position in the workplaces of the small to medium-sized businesses throughout this country.

We all know that we are going to get some pretty awful numbers tomorrow that will confirm what we all know: Australia is in recession, which is a terrible situation to be in. A lot of people are losing their jobs, and the government is not governing to minimise that. Indeed, it is governing to make the economic climate more difficult. That is most regrettable, because at a time when we need a strong, prudent and thoughtful government we have a government that is spending billions of dollars willy-nilly in areas that will not produce an economic return either for individuals, businesses or for the country. Australia cannot afford to have this Labor government for one day longer than is necessary.

We have seen how the government has back flipped to the catering industry. I salute all of those who have been front and centre in trying to make sure that their voice is heard in the upper echelons in the Rudd government. I hope that sanity prevails, as jobs will be preserved if their views are taken into account. Now is not the time for shoving on to businesses in the hospitality industry and the fast-food and the pharmacy sectors costs that those businesses cannot sustain and which the economy cannot sustain.

We have seen a lot of commentary in the media, and I suspect that a lot of people are very disillusioned with the course of this government in terms of this piece of legislation and the impact that it will have on businesses. Now is not the time for government to lose control of the steering wheel; indeed, now is the absolute time for the government to be strong and steady. Yet we see that that is certainly not the case. I want to commend a recent editorial in the Weekend Australian of Saturday 30 May. It spoke about the challenge for union leaders, which is for them to try and help create more and better paying jobs for their members.

I make reference to that editorial because it notes the reforms of the Hawke and Keating years. Certainly the reforms of the Hawke years in particular deserve the applause of the parliament, because when a political party or a Prime Minister does the right thing, irrespective of their political stripes, it is incumbent upon all of us to be true to ourselves and true to the interests of Australia and to say, ‘Yes, Prime Minister X did the right thing,’ or, ‘Political party X did the right thing.’ That does not diminish one; that does not diminish one’s party; that does not diminish one’s philosophical direction or one’s central values. Indeed, I think that it elevates that political party or individual to another level of respect in the community. I am certainly one who is going to put on the record that the very tough decisions that Prime Minister Hawke made in his time and that Prime Minister Keating made with respect to superannuation were things that were very necessary. I applaud the union movement for their courage at that time in playing in the national interest. But I am not sure if that is the case now.

I know that these words are not much to the leaders of the ACTU. That may be the case, but I will utter them nevertheless. I encourage the union leaders of today to look back at the union leaders of the Hawke era in particular and have the courage to say: ‘We’re going to ensure that we’re about working together with the government and business in the interests of the country. We’re not just about expanding the membership of the union base, something that would be detrimental to this country.’ I draw the attention of the House and those in the Ryan electorate to that very insightful article of Saturday 30 May about where the unions are.

We all know that those opposite are always talking about how John Howard was someone who looked backwards. Ironically, it is none other than today’s Labor government and today’s union leaders who are taking this country back. The people who pay the price will be the future generations of Australians.

See this speech in context