Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

They introduced a concept called arbitration. As the previous leader of the Labor Party recalled, the first head of the arbitration court said that, when there is a contract of one, there is no contract. That is a profound concept. So we got arbitration and, funnily enough, from an enlightened Tory. The first arbitration in Australia came through George Reid as Premier of New South Wales. He introduced arbitration as law so that by right a worker had the right to arbitration if he wanted a fair go; he did not have to go on strike and go hungry, be shot dead, in some cases, or be thrown in jail for three years hard labour, as the entire executive of the AWU was in Queensland. He did not have to do those things. He could go in a civilised manner to an arbitration court and put his case. The employer could also go in a civilised manner to arbitration and put his case. We were a civilised society.

An incident that occurred last night in a Rugby League game indicated a not very pleasant side of not having a referee. The Liberal Party abolished arbitration in this country, so now we are playing football without a referee. That suited them because they represent the more powerful party, the powerful corporations, who are almost all foreign corporations. The Liberal Party represent the foreign corporations that own this country. All of our mining companies, all of our dairy factories, all of our sugar mills are foreign owned. Almost all of our factories—not that we have got many left—are foreign owned. So, representing their masters, the corporations, they abolished arbitration. We people of Australia might be dumb but we ain't that dumb, and a very good man lost his seat in parliament. Only twice in Australian history has a Prime Minister lost his seat in parliament, and on both occasions that Prime Minister abolished the arbitration system.

The sad news I have for the people of Australia is that you have not got it back. The ALP will lose office, and the historical record will read that they gave you back your arbitration commission but it is a catch-22: you cannot get into it. You can only get into it by way of strike, and even then it cannot arbitrate on the questions at issue. It can only arbitrate on the issue of the strike. I have spoken many times, thinking that they could, but I was incorrect. I thought that so long as you had a strike you could then get into the arbitration commission and secure arbitration. For the powerful unions that is all right. For that five per cent of the workforce that belong to powerful, good unions—some might say bad unions but I will say at least they are very aggressive on behalf of their membership—it is all right. But the other 95 per cent could go on strike as long as you like in some areas and no-one could care less. As far as the employer is concerned, you could stay out there until you go hungry.

That is why we need arbitration—so that it is fair to both sides. We are a civilised society; we do not play football without a referee. The fact is that the ALP did not give access to arbitration except in a very limited way by way of a strike. It was the only way you could you get into the arbitration commission. They will be remembered in the history books. Every one of them that sat in this parliament voted for legislation along those lines.

Please God that we will be able, before this parliament dies, to put back into this parliament—we have urged everyone in the Labor Party to please give it back—our right to arbitration so that we do not have to go on strike to get into the arbitration commission and that when we do get in there they are able to make an award. Quite frankly, an employer is supposed to try and make ends meet, and it is very difficult, because with the free-market regime imposed upon them they are forced to either close their doors completely or go down to Chinese wages. There is no in-between here!

I have two other minor matters which I need to address. Both are very difficult areas, but the area of bullying worries me greatly. Obviously, I have worked in mustering camps on many occasions in my life, and you do not say politely to the bloke, 'Shut that gate.' That is not how it works in a mustering camp, I can assure you. And in mining, if you are hitting a shaker with a sledgehammer—as was one of my many jobs at the mines when I worked there—you do not say, 'Get off that shaker because it is about to come back at you at 64 kilometres an hour.' I am afraid that the language that is used when you address someone in that situation could very well be construed as bullying. I think in a lot of cases it would be construed as bullying.

When I jumped into the big lead flue without a safety belt on, my foreman did not say: 'Oh, Bobby, that is naughty of you! Can you please get out and put the belt on?' That was not what happened. So I am worried about right of entry—very seriously worried about right of entry—because it is a de facto way of cutting out any trade union involvement at all. All we are saying is that the worker has a right to be represented, and then he has a right to a fair go: he goes to arbitration and, please God, we get reasonable outcomes from the arbitration commission. That was the system for 100 years in this country. The system in this country was that we paid more for our wages—not like the Liberal Party, who keep saying, 'Wages are too high; we've got to compete,' which is code for saying, 'We'll work for Chinese labour wages.' (Time expired)

See this speech in context