Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I always enjoy following the previous member when he speaks. He very selectively picks out recommendations and accuses members on this side of being in the pockets of the unions. I could throw back the accusation of him being in the pockets of the employers, but that would not be true—because he is in the pocket only of certain employers and that is quite a worry. The previous speaker said this takes us back prior to the commencement of the Fair Work Act. What I would say to the previous speaker is: it is back to the future—back to Work Choices. I believe that is where members of this parliament want to take us: back to Work Choices.

The Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 is further proof of how this government sees the Australian people, because they said one thing before the election and are doing another thing after the election. Remember those words, 'No return to Work Choices'? Every piece of industrial relations legislation that has been through this parliament has taken us a step closer to Work Choices. The people of Australia will remember it. The people of Australia will know that they have been deceived by the Abbott government. Each and every day this government demonstrates to the Australian people that it cannot be trusted. When it comes to workplace relations and negotiation between employers and workers this government has a very jaundiced, one-sided view on how those negotiations should take place.

The vast majority of the provisions of this bill are anti worker. We need a government that is about providing jobs, one that is about looking at both sides—what is best for business and what is best for workers—and at the same time is generating jobs. In under 12 months the Abbott government has charted a course to return to Work Choices, yet it has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to address the issue of full-time jobs collapsing across this country. Every day we hear about another major employer either moving offshore or jobs disappearing. At the same time this government has absolutely no plan whatsoever for jobs. The government is all about cutting pay and conditions and making it harder for working Australians.

The Prime Minister does not speak the name of Work Choices. His ministers do not speak the name of Work Choices. Those on the other side of this parliament avoid the words Work Choices. But in reality we are on that track, back to Work Choices. We want to make sure that the bill that is before us does not take us back to that point, but it is very difficult when you have zealots on the other side of this parliament that are rabid in their hatred of unions. The one thing that they want to do is see that we return to Work Choices. The workers get less pay and poorer conditions and, at the same time, there will be an enormous impact on the lives of families.

The opposition opposes this fair work bill because it is a continuation of the government's crusade against employees' conditions and wages. It is a continuation of the race to the bottom. This government will not rest until we have a US-style situation in Australia where workers are working for $5 an hour. This government does not believe in providing workers with a voice. It is about disempowering workers and creating a state where workers have to take what they are given—where they do not have strong representation and unions do not have the right to enter workplaces. The previous speaker was talking about how a worker could ask to invite a union into the workplace. Even if that were anonymous it is not too hard, in many workplaces, to work out who invited the person in. Then that worker worries about being vilified and the consequences of that act.

Before the election and when introducing this bill, the government promised that, when proposing amendments to the Fair Work Act, those amendments would not go any further than its pre-election promise—that was point No. 1—and that it would implement specific recommendations 'directly' from the 2012 Fair Work review. It would definitely appear that the government has broken its promises on both these counts. The government has gone much further than its pre-election promises in a number of places, including individual flexibility arrangements, greenfields agreements and right of entry.

I would like to first spend a little time on right of entry. The government is seeking to restrict union access to work sites. It claims—this is what it is claiming; it certainly is not the fact—that, currently, right-of-entry provisions are skewed in favour of unions and that Labor created a situation where unions could visit workplaces where employees are not members of unions. This is the government moving to disempower workers in the workplace. This is the government moving to stop workers having a voice in the workplace. This is the government denying workplaces the right to have unions enter. Quite frankly, it is not good enough. This bill will restore the arrangements that existed prior to Labor's changes. Union officials will have to comply with 'a reasonable request' by an employer to hold discussions in 'a particular room'. Reasonable request? Who determines what reasonable is? Particular room? Even a particular room can be very intimidating. Employees will be prevented from nominating locations and employers will nominate locations that will intimidate, as I stated.

When it comes to greenfields agreements, the government claims that unions are too easily able to frustrate the making of greenfields agreements. This bill will extend good-faith bargaining rules to the negotiation of greenfields agreements. For example, employers and unions will be required to participate in meetings with each other. There will be new, optional, three-month negotiation times and, if agreement cannot be reached within that time—this is the really telling point—the employer will be able to take its proposal directly to the Fair Work Commission for approval. So it is really not negotiation; it is about skewing the system very much in favour of the employer.

There are a number of individual flexibility agreements, greenfields agreements and right-of-entry agreements. In a number of cases, including in individual flexibility agreements, the government has clearly overstepped its pre-election commitment. It is doing this by using tricky language, as we have come to expect this government always to do. I want to touch on individual flexibility. Individual flexibility is a trade-off of money for benefits that are non-financial. That can be good if it involves small amounts of money and creates a degree of flexibility, but it is not good when it is used to whittle away the working conditions of workers in a particular place.

This legislation is really about the government very much seeking to change the balance in the workplace and take away workers' conditions. I want to concentrate a little more on those flexible agreements. Flexible work practices can, as I was saying, deliver benefits to both employers and employees if they are applied appropriately. The key factor there is fairness. At the same time, vulnerable, low-paid workers and their families must be protected. These are the lifters and carriers. These are the people who the Treasurer targets with his cuts. These are the people who the budget seeks to impose the greatest hurt and pain on. These are the people who this Abbott government is seeking to inflict more pain on. If these flexible agreements are imposed on unsuspecting employees, quite often, if you do not have the proper union representation, you can agree to a condition that you really do not understand. At the end of the day, when they find out that their pay has gone down and their conditions have been weakened, it is really difficult for workers. They are the losers in that situation.

I know there are some very good people on the other side of this House—people who do not really want to see workers disadvantaged. Any flexibility should be a win-win for both the employer and the worker. It should not be a situation where the employer benefits and the worker is disadvantaged. It is about both parties, and this is a system that is already in place across a majority of enterprise agreements in Australia. It really concerns me when we have this sort of legislation before the parliament. The government is unreasonably proposing that a key safeguard be abandoned, traded away through its flexible agreements. The expert panel stated:

… if a nonmonetary benefit is being traded for a monetary benefit, the value of the monetary foregone must be relatively insignificant, and the value of the non-monetary benefit is proportionate.

That is not what I see this legislation do. Despite the clear prescription for 'relatively insignificant' and 'proportionate', these are missing from the bill that we have before us today.

The government has also included a requirement for employees to provide their employers with what it has misleadingly labelled a 'genuine need statement'. I think that genuine need statement is something that really skews this legislation. Who determines what a genuine need is? The arbitration on that would really disadvantage the workers in a workplace unless there are some fair minded employers out there who will interpret it in the spirit of genuineness—and I am sure there are some like that. But, where there is a statement of genuine need, who determines what 'genuine' is? The statement is intended to catch an employee's state of mind at the time the flexible agreement was agreed to. How do you do that? That is the question.

This government has tried to pass this off as an employee safeguard. It is not an employee safeguard. It is actually a tool to discriminate against employees. I think this government should hang its head in shame. This legislation is antiworker. This legislation is anti-union, but this government is always anti-union. In industrial relations, to establish a good industrial relations system you need balance between the employers and the workers. You do not start a vendetta against the union movement or one side of the equation. For the government, it is punish one, punish all. It is really only concerned about one thing, and that is punishing workers and punishing unions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context