Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in opposition to the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014—I know this is a surprise to those across the bench! I do so because this is another bill in a long tradition of propositions that come from the coalition which seek to reduce the rights of working people in the workplace. Notwithstanding their statement that they seek to promote a sensible centre, we never see from the coalition a proposition which ever gives rise to benefits for employees. At the end of the day, this is a bill which is in the tradition of a government and a political movement which when you look inside you see in there the beating heart of Work Choices. This is very much a contemporary manifestation of that. It is on that basis that we seek to oppose this bill. We also oppose it because, in essence, it represents a broken promise, a broken promise from a government which before the election said that they would go no further after being elected than the pre-election commitments that they made. That has not been honoured in this bill, where there are provisions that go beyond those proposals that were put to the Australian people this time last year.

The coalition said that they would implement specific recommendations directly from the 2012 Fair Work review. Again, propositions contained within this bill go well beyond what was contained within the Fair Work review. Not only does this represent a manifestation of an itching desire on the part of the coalition to walk down the path of Work Choices, to resurrect it; it also represents a series of broken promises compared to the proposition that they put to the Australian people this time last year. This is particularly the case in relation to individual flexibility arrangements, greenfields agreements and the right of entry, all of which are contained within the bill. I want to deal with each of those points.

Individual flexibility arrangements were introduced by the former Labor government, acknowledging that there are circumstances in which employers and employees may well want to enter an agreement which differs from the enterprise agreement or the award which pertains to a particular workplace, and that such a flexibility arrangement may well represent a win-win for both the employer and the employee in the workplace. That is obviously something to be encouraged. At the same time, there is a real risk that when you put in regimes of this kind they can be exploited to the detriment of an employee.

The safeguard that was put in place by Labor at the time was the BOOT, the better off overall test, which sought to make sure that there was a protection for employees with the individual flexibility arrangements that they entered into. At the heart of that was a proposition which said that it would be possible to sacrifice, potentially, conditions which had a monetary value associated with them in return for a non-monetary benefit and where that were to occur, it needed to be the case that—and this was recommended by the expert panel—the monetary value that was to be foregone needed to be relatively insignificant and the value of the non-monetary benefit needed to be proportionate. That was at the heart of the expert panel's recommendation in relation to individual flexibility arrangements.

That is not what we see in relation to the proposition which is put before us in this bill, where it makes it clear that that relationship between the insignificance of the monetary benefit foregone and the proportionality of the non-monetary benefit gained does not form part of the flexibility arrangement contained within this bill. That, in our view, opens up a real possibility that workers can be exploited through an individual flexibility arrangement which may well mean that people are asked to give up significant conditions that are either existing in a workplace agreement or a workplace award. That is a key example where people can be significantly worse off. We all remember the no disadvantage test, which was such a key component of what was removed during the Work Choices legislation. This has echoes of that, and so it is very important that it be contested within this parliament, and that is why we oppose it.

In relation to greenfields agreements, greenfields agreements clearly have their place within the industrial system, where you do have a new workplace which needs to be established based on a set of working conditions, and obviously they are often done so on the basis of negotiating those agreements with a relevant union which may represent people covered by the kind of work that would be the subject of the workplace and therefore the agreement. But what this provision provides is an ability to put employers in a much greater position of power when negotiating those agreements. Specifically, the provision that requires that an employer notify a three-month negotiation period has the effect of beginning a clock which will run for three months. During that time it would in effect be possible for the employer not to significantly or seriously negotiate with the union in relation to the agreement, and once the clock expires after the three months the employer is then given the opportunity of taking whatever is in place at that moment to the Fair Work Commission. It would have the effect of, in essence, allowing an employer to negotiate with itself in order to come up with what is ultimately taken to the Fair Work Commission. There is nothing in that which represents fairness or a sensible centre in terms of the workplace.

Finally, in terms of the specific issues that I want to deal with, is right of entry. Right of entry is an important provision which gives employees an opportunity to consult with unions about the issues they have within their workplace. There is a balancing act which needs to be undertaken, which Labor undertook in government, to balance the rights of employees to gain the advice that they want to gain from their union whilst also not giving rise to a situation where you see an unreasonable obstruction to the operations of an employer's business. That is common sense. Balancing the rights of an employer to continue their business as they will and the rights of employees to get information is at the heart of any right of entry provision. But what we are seeing in this proposition is an ability to further restrict unions from being able to consult with employees in a workplace, and that balance is upset.

There is also the proposition of an invitation certificate, which is couched in terms of seeking to give rise to or provide for anonymity for employees who want to have a union come into a workplace in order to give them advice. But I do not think anyone can seriously suggest that a proposition of an invitation certificate could realistically remain anonymous in circumstances where you have a small workplace. If you are talking about 15 or 20 employees, a union turns up by virtue of the issuing of an invitation certificate, it would be very difficult to maintain any anonymity around the person who gave rise to that certificate. Therefore, as a proposition, we see that as being unrealistic and therefore one which would mean that the ability for individuals in those circumstances to be able to consult with a union would be seriously curtailed.

In all of this there is nothing which seeks to create the sensible centre that the government talks about. This is nothing more than starting the walk down the path towards Work Choices—walking down the path towards a situation where employees are further disempowered within the workplace, where their ability to maintain their conditions of employment are further curtailed.

But what I find extraordinary about this bill coming forward before this parliament at this moment in time is the preoccupation that exists with his government in pursuing this kind of legislation when we have in Australia the loss of manufacturing and the increase in unemployment that we are seeing. In my electorate of Corio, based as it is on Geelong, we have seen in the last 12 months or more, the two pillars of our private sector economy—Ford and Alcoa—announce that they will no longer continue operations in Geelong. At the beginning of this month we had Alcoa conclude its smelting in Geelong, having pursued that activity for more than 50 years. We have an enormous amount of people whose lives have been placed in a position of uncertainty as their employment is removed from them. All of that has happened whilst we have seen this government effectively goad the car industry offshore. No-one will forget the words of the Treasurer in response to Holden last year and what has then ensued in relation to both the car industry and manufacturing in general. That ought to be the focus of the government's activities—dealing with that issue, making sure that we maintain a manufacturing industry in this country and making sure that regions such as mine are given the appropriate resources to transition from a significant economic shock such as that which the closure of a company such as Alcoa represents in Geelong. Yet we have seen none of that from this government. When it comes to the question of employment and jobs, what interests this government is walking down the path of unveiling Work Choices again. It is about limiting employees' rights within the workplace rather than making sure that this country continues to have the kinds of industries that will employ people going forward.

There is a real sense in Geelong that this is a government that has cut Geelong loose in terms of its manifest failure to maintain manufacturing in Australia and its failure to assist Geelong in the transition from the loss of those employers—and then, in the context of the budget, reduced the social safety net for many people who are now going to need it. Instead of doing any of that, what we have before us is this bill which seeks to limit employees' rights in the workplace and which is, at its heart, a fundamental broken promise.

See this speech in context