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

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 today and wholeheartedly endorse it. You would recall that the 2007 election was not a great moment for our side; we lost many people. That is the nature of politics. People make a decision about what they see in front of them; and, unfortunately, they decided against us. I think it would be fair to say that, particularly on the east coast—not so much on the west coast—the Work Choices argument was a fair influence on many people. Again, not on the west coast; I was elected with a 2½ per cent swing. My good friend the member for Swan was elected with a one per cent swing despite the worst advertising that could have been thrown at us, as indeed ran in the rest of the country. But I know that, in the cases of the member for Brisbane, who is the former member for Petrie, and the member for Fisher, who is the former member for Longman, the moment was not lost on them. Everybody on this side of politics remembers that there were lessons learnt about things going too far. There was a no-disadvantage clause in the Work Choices policy, and I think that was a mistake. The Labor Party, the government back at the start of 2008, kept reminding us and talking about Work Choices. For years they talked about Work Choices, and it was not lost on us. So what we see in this bill is exactly what was promised before the last election. There is no Work Choices anymore; it is just a sensible rebalancing to the centre.

I know the other side has a great interest in this. The arguments that we have heard against this bill are really not about the workers, not about the employees; they are really about the vested interests of the funders of the other side—the union movement—and the preselectors of the other side, of which something like 50 per cent are again from the union movement. It is not really representative of private-sector workers. Eighty-seven per cent are not members of a union. It is much higher, of course, in the public sector. But 87 per cent of private-sector workers reject union representation, and I think there is something in that. When we talk about and implement this policy of rebalancing the Fair Work Act, what we are really doing is speaking up in the best interests of the majority of workers in this country. The reason for that is that, without development, without businesses, without the very strong private sector, there are no jobs for anybody beyond the public sector, and an economy must have a strong private sector to thrive. That is really where the jobs go.

As I said, I understand why there is this stoic defence by the Labor Party against any change at all to the Fair Work Act. I know there is a battle on the other side of politics between the extreme left of the Greens and the not-so-left of the Labor Party. It is a battle for who is actually getting the funding from the unions. I know the piper is to be paid. If people want their preselections and funding for their election campaigns, the industrial arm of the Labor Party—or maybe the political arm of the union movement—has to do as it is told. If they do not, who knows what is going to happen with these factional deals? As former senator Louise Pratt found out, a lot of people can be victims of deals between the factions over there. While certain union leaders might just parachute into a safe seat, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword; and, in any case, you have to do as the bosses tell you.

Turning specifically to this bill, as I said, it is about returning to a fair balance. We are trying to do something that is going to be good for workers and good for business so that there are more jobs and a can-do attitude. The first point I would like to talk about is the greenfields projects. A can-do attitude is required when we are talking about investments. The questions must be about what are the advantages for Australia and what benefits can Australians gather by working hard on these new projects. Labour arrangements must be put in place so that investors know what the costs will be. As I said, no investment does not help the country. It does not help the employees or potential employees, and there will be no-one for a union to represent if this is not done properly.

It is wrong for any party in such matters to seek to frustrate any agreement in an attempt to merely start talking about the wages or the other benefits before they even know the country and the future investments created. Instead, we propose to ensure good faith bargaining and to set time limits so that there is a requirement to actually be constructive in these negotiations, and I really do wonder sometimes how that can be objected to. Put very simply, the employer informs the union of the proposal and then there is a three-month period to get an agreement. That is where the can-do attitude comes in. You have three months to work it out; that is a long time. It is around 100 days to come to an agreement. If they still cannot come to an agreement after three months, it is then that the employer can take the proposed agreement to Fair Work. That agreement has to comply with the existing requirements and of course satisfy the 'better off overall' assessment. That is a really critical point because in the end no-one will go backwards as a result. I find it disappointing that those on the other side are suddenly so against Fair Work, that they are harbouring a belief that Fair Work will not ensure that these rules and laws will be carried out. It is disappointing.

The next point I would like to speak about is the issue of right of entry, and that is really about freedom of choice. If a person wants a union to represent them, then fine. But if a person does not want a union to represent them or preach to them or cajole them in the workplace, then they should not have to put up with that either. As I said, in the private sector 87 per cent of people have come to that exact conclusion. On the issue of workplace access for unions, there really is a current imbalance in the access rules. What is proposed is a fair and sensible balance. It will, of course, ensure employees have the right to be represented in the workplace if they wish to be, but it will also take away the level of unnecessary disruption to employers so that they can get on with running the business that actually employs and generates the returns. Again: if they were not generating returns, then no-one would have a job in any case.

As we know, and I know a lot of speakers have referenced this, back in 2007 there were certain guarantees given by the then shadow minister, Julia Gillard, that the existing rights-of-entry laws would remain. That was from 2007, so the arrangements before the 2007 election were that they would remain. Instead, through the original Fair Work Act, easier access was provided. This took the form of excessive workplace visits from unions. It did not matter whether the employees were union members or not. They did not even need to ask for the union to come to the site. They were the extreme arrangements and that was what faced us.

Add to that the competition for membership between several unions and it became a worse problem. Difficulties running a business enterprise were made that much more difficult. I do wonder what those opposite would consider to be a fair number of right-of-entry visits. As the minister noted—this is relevant to Western Australia—the Pluto LNG joint venture project had 200 right-of-entry visits from unions in just three months—that is more than two a day. I think others have also mentioned that BHP's Worsley Alumina plant had 676 visits in 12 months—again, something in the vicinity of two a day. This does not actually create productivity; this is disrupting people and pulling people off their jobs and getting in the way.

Therefore, it is little wonder that action has been required and that is why we are here. On this point, what is going to change is that, yes, a union will still be able to enter a workplace where they have an existing representative role via an enterprise agreement or if employees have asked them to attend. But if there is no existing role an employee who wants to remain anonymous can still seek to have the union come to their workplace but the union then has to make an application to the Fair Work Commission to obtain an invitation certificate. This request has to be proven to the satisfaction of the commission after they have ascertained that a worker has invited the union, and that that worker does work on the site. To protect the anonymity of the worker, their name will not be on that certificate. These changes will restore the balance and will be consistent with what both sides of politics said before the 2007 election.

One of the great defining features of the previous government's departure from everything they had said before the 2007 election was excessive right-of-entry visits. As I said, 676 visits to BHP's Worsley Alumina plant in a single year. While those opposite may think that the destruction of productivity is acceptable, clearly it is not. This bill will provide the mechanism for the commission to deal with disputes about excessive right-of-entry visits for discussion purposes. The previous government's faux attempts to deal with this problem were to place amendments in the Fair Work Act that were ineffective and were almost impossible to use. Their plan was to allow action on excessive visits only where there had been 'unreasonable diversion of the occupiers' critical resources.' Contrast that with our plan to allow the commission to possibly suspend the entry permit or revoke it, to place conditions upon it such as time limits. In this way, the history of the union's previous actions will be considered and the permit will be conditional.

As the minister said, 87 per cent of private sector employees are not union members and it is right that the rights of those workers are not impacted by union visits. The amendments address the venue for unions to address their members. The employer will have to nominate a room that is reasonable and fit for the purpose, but the lunch room at lunchtime will not be such a room. The travel and accommodation costs of union officials visiting remote worksites should be borne not by the business but by the union officials and their members. I recall that former CFMEU union secretary Kevin Reynolds had a top of the line Range Rover, so it is not as though they do not have four-wheel drive vehicles to support this.

I want to turn to some comments made by the member for Shortland. She made some false allegations about reducing people's pay and conditions, and I think she might have even quoted the individual agreements. I would like to clarify that. It was under the Fair Work Act of the former government that individual flexibility agreements, IFAs, were enshrined. IFAs are important because they allow employers and employees the opportunity to agree on conditions for the employee that suit the business and the employee. It gives them greater flexibility. In retaining this, it is clear that an employer cannot force an employee to sign an IFA or make it a condition of employment, and the employee must be better off overall than they would have been under the applicable modern award or enterprise agreement.

There is no doubt that this bill restores things to a sensible balance. There are loads of protections for workers, but for the opposition it is not about protection of workers; it is about protection of their pre-selectors—the union movement. We are getting back to a very small centre, and I endorse this bill.

See this speech in context