Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to strongly support the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014. This bill contains policies we took to the last election to make Australian workplaces more flexible, more productive and, most importantly, fairer for both employers and employees.

As someone with a background in industrial relations, I am very pleased to be part of a government that is serious about making sure we improve the system. I do not subscribe to the view that the spectre of Work Choices should forever cloud the coalition's approach to IR. Of course, we have to be vigilant to ensure that the practices that occur in our workplaces reflect community expectations and that reforms are designed to keep pace with changing trends in the modern workplace. We have to be ever mindful that our IR policies reflect the Australian ethos of a fair go—and that means a fair go for all, not just union bosses. This bill strikes the right balance.

At the outset, I want to draw the attention of the House to the comprehensive policy document that we produced before the last election, entitled The coalition's policy to improve the fair work laws. It is a very detailed 38-page booklet which goes through each of the changes we intended to make to the Fair Work Act. It states:

A Coalition Government will keep the Fair Work framework and work to improve them. Although there are some problems with the current laws as set out in this document, there are also many positive aspects. The Coalition will work to improve the operation of the Fair Work laws so that workers, business and the economy are better off.

It goes on to outline our plans to restore union workplace access rules to make them fairer—to make sure that access rules are more like those that were in place prior to Labor's unbalanced amendments. We also signal our intention to deal with excessive right of entry visits by union officials.

Our policy will: improve the process for the negotiation of greenfield agreements to ensure that unions can no longer frustrate bargaining for these agreements through unsustainable claims and delays. It will improve workplace productivity and flexibility by enhancing the scope for employees to make individual flexibility arrangements that meet their needs. It will close the 'strike first, talk later' loophole in the good faith bargaining rules, which Labor refused to address; and it will maintain the value of unclaimed wages recovered for workers by the Commonwealth. These are exactly the reforms we are undertaking with this bill, and I will detail some of these later in my speech. I also want to point out that this bill enacts a number of recommendations of Labor's own Fair Work review panel's 2012 report—which, incidentally, was commissioned by the now Leader of the Opposition.

This bill clearly delivers on our election commitments in relation to the Fair Work Act—no more and no less. These are not radical changes; these are sensible amendments to ensure that workplaces meet the needs of employees and employers alike. These are improvements to the Fair Work Act. They do not change fundamental protections for workers, but they do reduce some of the more obstructionist and unbalanced power that remains for union bosses. We were upfront before the election about our plans, and we have worked to deliver our commitments. We are getting on with the job we were elected to do.

So what is Labor's response? Naturally, they oppose this bill. They are standing in the way of letting the government fulfil our election commitments—just as they opposed our legislation to scrap the carbon tax, just as they are blocking our attempts to fix the economy by opposing responsible budget measures. This is an opposition hell-bent on opposing any attempt by this government to fix the mess they created. You would think they would be a little more circumspect and let us get on with the job of reversing the decline that occurred on their watch. But not this mob. However, I suspect that with this bill it is not just about being obstructionist. I suspect that with this bill it is more personal: it is more about their own self-interest.

Why do Labor oppose this bill?

The answer is very obvious: they oppose it because they are still, despite the Leader of the Opposition's empty rhetoric and platitudes, very much beholden to the union movement. Make no mistake: Labor and the union bosses remain as co-dependent on each other today as they have ever been. Understandably, the unions do not like this legislation because it curbs some of the excessive power that the former government granted to union bosses—for example, union workplace access.

Our changes will fairly and sensibly balance the right of employees to be represented in the workplace, if they wish to be, with the right of employers to go about their business without unnecessary disruption. Ironically, it was the Labor Party itself that promised in 2007 that there would be no changes to the union right-of-entry laws. In a press conference on 28 August 2007 then deputy opposition leader, Julia Gillard, said:

We will make sure that current right of entry provisions stay. We understand that entering on the premises of an employer needs to happen in an orderly way. We will keep the right of entry provisions.

Ms Gillard had already recognised that excessive workplace visits by unions had the potential to impact on productivity when she said in June 2007:

We would not want to see changes to the right of entry systems that jeopardise work performance.

It was reiterated again on 28 August when, as announced today, Labor said, 'Federal Labor will maintain the existing right-of-entry rules without exception.'

Sadly, Labor did not keep these promises, and unions were given much easier access to workplaces under the Fair Work Act provisions which were exploited. This has meant that many businesses, even those whose employees are not members of a union or who have not asked for a union to visit, have had to deal with repeated and excessive visits by unions. The problem gets even worse when you have multiple unions competing to represent employees at a workplace. The former government's Fair Work Act review panel noted the excessive nature of some union access, with the Pluto LNG project receiving over 200 right-of-entry visits in only three months. BHP Billiton's Worsley Alumina plant faced 676 right-of-entry visits in a single year. Our changes will reduce the capacity for unions to deliberately harass and disrupt businesses in this way. These right-of-entry amendments should not really be contentious. They are, after all, a reflection of Labor's publicly stated position prior to the 2007 election.

I also want to point out that most reasonable union officials will find that these changes do not impact, in any way, on their sensible approach to their right-of-entry activities. However, they are necessary to curb the excesses of some union bosses who, sadly, believe they remain a law unto themselves. Other sensible right-of-entry changes include repealing the previous government's amendments made in 2013 that expanded union right-of-entry rights even further by allowing for uninvited lunchroom invasions and required employers to pay for the cost of union boss joy-rides to remote worksites. Those amendments gave unions the right to insist on addressing workers in the lunch room, even when the workers had not requested their presence and are not union members. This is unfair to the 87 per cent of private-sector workers who are not union members. As Minister Abetz so eloquently put it, it is unfair for all workers that just want to eat their lunch in peace.

This bill will, in fact, restore the sensible arrangements that were previously in place, requiring union officials to comply with the reasonable request by the employer to hold discussions in a particular room. Employers will continue to be prevented from nominating locations with the intention of intimidating, discouraging or hindering employees from participating in discussions. The former government also introduced obligations on employers at remote worksites to provide union officials with transport and accommodation to enable them to access those sites. We will repeal this costly and onerous piece of regulation and instead reinstate the previous approach in which unions and employers can reach their own arrangements in these circumstances. I suggest that travelling to worksites might be a better use of union funds than some of the expenses we have seen claimed by union officials like claim Craig Thomson or Michael Williamson.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

The changes to right-of-entry provisions in this bill are not revolutionary; they are common sense. They are designed to strike the right balance between ensuring a productive workplace and ensuring union members can be effectively represented. As I said before, reasonable union leaders have nothing at all to fear in these reforms. So I say to the members opposite that they should be wary of the language that they have used in this debate and the alarmism with which they have opposed the issue. It is nice to see that some members from the opposition have actually turned up, because not that long ago we looked around the chamber and there was no-one here from the opposition—so it is good to see you here and interested in the debate that is taking place.

The shadow minister for employment and workplace relations made the absurd claim that this bill is part of the some crusade against the employment conditions of workers across Australia. It is a line right from the union playbook and clearly demonstrates how Labor really is the parliamentary wing of the union movement. It was Labor that introduced IFAs to enable workers and their employers to mutually agree on conditions that suit their individual needs. IFAs are an important option to enable employees to, for instance, manage their child care or other caring arrangements, to spend time with family or for other commitments. They are specific to the individual and not to the workforce as a whole.

When we talk about the need to encourage more women in the workforce, flexibility and, in particular, the ability to be able to manage the demands of family life are huge factors. I also think flexibility is the key for harnessing the experience and wisdom of our seniors in the workplace, as many would like to remain in the workforce but have more flexibility when it comes to hours, time off and other conditions.

When we talk in this place about work and family balance, we need to recognise the importance of workplace flexibility. Managing Work Life Balance International, an HR consultancy based in New South Wales, says:

Workplace flexibility is a critical component of any attraction and retention strategy. Australian and international research clearly indicates that employees, be they Baby Boomers, Gen X or Gen Y, perceive flexibility in when, where and how they achieve their work commitments to be a key factor in maintaining their motivation and commitment to their employer.

They go on to say:

Best Practice employers have put processes in place that ensure their responses and management of flexible work options meet the requirements of the legislation, are non-discriminatory and address the needs of the business and the employee.

So I think it is very important to note that more flexible workplaces tailored to suit individual needs are an increasingly important component of any modern IR system. They are, of course, not favoured by the unions. Perhaps this failure to recognise that collectivism does not always suit the needs of individuals and the workplace or produce the best outcome is part of the reason why union membership has plummeted in the last 20 years, falling from 43 per cent of males and 35 per cent of females in 1992 to just 18 per cent for both genders in 2012.

Of course, when we talk about flexibility and IFAs, the government is very mindful that protections must be in place for employees. The amendments in this bill to IFAs are based on the fair work review panel's recommendations. They also include further new safeguards to ensure that employees are better off.

Despite Labor's hysteria, the fact is that the current IFA framework in the Fair Work Act will stay, with additional protections put in place. For example, this means that an employer cannot force an employee to sign an IFA or make it a condition of employment; the employee must be better off overall than they would have been under the applicable modern award or enterprise agreement; and a worker must provide a statement to the employer saying that the IFA meets their genuine needs and that they are better off overall.

Under the current system, unions can restrict the scope of flexibility terms under enterprise agreements through the bargaining process to only cover a single matter—for instance, the taking of leave. This means that workers may be denied the chance to have IFAs on other matters even if they and their employer want to agree to more suitable arrangements.

Once again, the amendments will deliver on the promises made by Labor themselves in 2007 and provide that IFAs may be made in relation to all of the matters currently prescribed in the model flexibility term, to the extent that those matters are covered in the agreement. This will ensure that workers have access to fair flexibility without a veto by union bosses.

This bill also implements the Fair Work Act Review Panel recommendation that employers should, in limited circumstances, have a legal defence if they enter into an IFA in good faith believing it meets all the requirements of the legislation when it turns out later that it does not. The bill also strengthens protections for employees by requiring a statement setting out that the arrangement meets their genuine needs and results in them being better off overall. This will make the position absolutely clear: employees will only make IFAs that provide for non-monetary benefits when the employees themselves make a clear statement in writing of why they are better off overall. Two further amendments recommended by the fair work review panel will be made to provide clarity and certainty to both employers and employees.

In the time remaining, I would just like to commend this bill to the House. I believe that it is an important part of our plan to boost productivity and ensure fairer, more flexible workplaces. These are sensible and reasonable reforms, and I do commend them to the House. I am proud to be part of a government that is taking a sensible, positive approach to industrial relations.

See this speech in context