Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What confected outrage have we just heard from the member for Isaacs. It was so confected that he tripped over himself, lost his spot and did not quite know how to finish. He knows, like everyone else in this place knows, that all we are doing here is honouring our election commitments. We took workplace relations policies to the last election and we are seeking to implement them. In doing so we are also ensuring that the previous Labor government implements the policies it took to the 2007 election. As we know only too well, they were the ones who said one thing before the election and did another thing after the election.

Just while the member for Isaacs leaves, still bloated by his confected outrage, I will give him an example. This is what then Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julia Gillard said before the 2007 election:

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.

But, sadly, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, as you know only too well, that is not what happened. The Labor government, when in power, could not help itself. I do not think it even needed the union movement to twist its arm. It just said, 'What would you like? What would you need?'—especially when we saw Prime Minister Gillard needing that union support to prop up her failing leadership. She decided that the key ingredient for her to survive was for her to give her union movement what they wanted. It was not the union movement as such; the union bosses who control the numbers were controlling her destiny.

One of the first things that Prime Minister Gillard relented on was union access to workplaces. This bill addresses this. It will address the current imbalance in union workplace access rules . Before the election, we said that we would fix this, and fixing it is what we are doing. We are doing it in two key areas. We are doing it with regard to the eligibility requirement for right of entry. They will be broken down into two key ingredients. Are the members of a workplace covered by an enterprise agreement? A union will only be entitled to enter a workplace for discussion purposes if they are covered by an enterprise agreement or they have been invited by a member or employee they are entitled to represent. I would have thought that is fairly straightforward, fairly simple and fairly uncontroversial. That is why we are seeing such confected outrage from those opposite. They have no genuine grievances when it comes to this bill. What we are putting in place are common sense, straightforward requirements that say to unions, 'If you want to access a workplace, there are some requirements that you need to abide by.' In very much the same way that we ask people to behave in a polite manner, that is what we are asking the union movement to do when it requires access to premises.

There are also changes being made with regard to right of entry when it comes to frequency disputes. What we do not want to see is union entry day after day after day. In some cases, sites are being visited up to 144 times a year, which leads to an unreasonable diversion of the occupier's critical resources. Sadly, this is a tactic which has been used by various union bosses to disrupt workplaces: unreasonably seek to gain access to a workplace day after day after day. These provisions seek to change that in, once again, a very straightforward, sensible way which is perfectly in line with the commitments that we took to the last election.

There are also the changes that will be made when it comes to repeals. The bill will also repeal the previous government's amendments, made in 2013, that expanded union right of entry even further by allowing for uninvited 'lunchroom invasions' and requiring employers to pay for the cost of union boss joy-rides to remote worksites. As all of us here would know, especially when it comes to remote worksites, we have people doing their jobs. They often work in fairly tough conditions. They work in a way that makes sure it benefits them and benefits the productivity of the enterprise they work for. The last thing that they need is the distraction caused by people deciding that they will go for a ride and seek to disrupt a remote workplace. This section makes sure that that sort of hindrance, that type of intimidation, can no longer take place. When it comes to right of entry, we are putting in place sensible safeguards to make sure that unions cannot exploit right of entry provisions. These are consistent with what then Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julia Gillard said in 2007.

There are three other key components of this bill that we think need to be addressed. The second one goes to greenfields agreements. As we have heard from the former Labor minister for resources, what is occurring with greenfields agreements is meaning that the development of new sites is not occurring because of the expense incurred for these major projects because unions, sadly, are holding some of these projects to ransom. Once again, it is not just our side who are saying this. Reasonable people on the other side are also prepared to admit that, when it comes to greenfields sites, there has been a problem with the way the Fair Work Bill has been implemented and we need to address that.

The bill will extend good faith bargaining rules to the negotiation of greenfields agreements to improve the standard of bargaining conduct. This will mean that employers and unions will be required to, for example, attend and participate in meetings with each other and consider and respond to proposals in a timely manner. Once again, this is straightforward and sensible. This is not radical change. This is common-sense change to make sure that, as we develop greenfield sites, unions cannot put themselves in a position where they hold the projects to ransom. And there is nothing here that those opposite should be afraid of. As a matter of fact, their own review of the Fair Work Act said some changes are required in this area.

The third important aspect of this bill is to do with fixing the 'strike first, talk later' loophole. Once again, this is very uncontroversial. Would those opposite like to see continue the idea of unions striking first and then deciding to negotiate? Surely, the fairer way to do it is to ensure that there are negotiations before strikes occur. Once again, this is consistent with the promises of the Labor Party prior to the 2007 election and the recommendation of the Fair Work Review Panel. In his speech to the National Press Club on 17 April 2007, the then Labor Leader, Kevin Rudd, said:

Industrial disputes are serious. They hurt workers, they hurt businesses, they can hurt families and communities, and they certainly hurt the economy. They—

employees—

will not be able to strike unless there has been genuine good faith bargaining.

Well, that is what we are trying to achieve here. I know that many of those opposite now try and disown their association with Prime Minister Rudd. But he said this prior to an election and I think it is beholden upon the Labor Party to say: 'Yes, we understand that and, yes, we are happy to abide by what he said because he took the Australian people into his confidence that this is what he would do.' Sadly, that is not what was finally implemented over the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We want to hold Labor to account and make sure they honour their own commitments and the promises they made to the Australian people.

Fourthly, and importantly, this bill seeks to make individual flexibility arrangements, which are in the Fair Work Act, workable so that workers and employers can use them. We want to make sure that if a worker wants to negotiate better arrangements in his workplace, and do that through these individual flexibility arrangements, they can do so. So far, these arrangements have proven to be almost unworkable. We want to make sure that they are workable, and we want to put in place additional protections because we want to make sure that these individual flexibility arrangements work for both the employer and the employee.

It is incredibly important that we get this right—and it is incredibly important for the union movement. The union movement now only represents 13 per cent of the private sector Australian workforce. So a union needs to make sure that its behaviours and practices represent workers and that the workers want to work with the union and be members of the union. If they get it right, there is a place for them to do so. But at the moment they must be asking themselves, 'What are we doing wrong?' And the Labor Party should be saying, 'Are we seriously helping the unions to do their job and play their role?' With private sector union membership at 13 per cent the Labor Party needs to be saying: 'Maybe we do need to look at what the government is proposing here. Maybe these are sensible changes that will help the union movement in the way it goes about its business. And, in the long run, that might be better for the union movement—rather than just taking the blind ideological approach that any change in this area cannot be countenanced, that any change needs to take us backwards rather than forwards.'

So I appeal to the Labor Party: think about the good you could do by agreeing to these sensible changes—changes which this government took to the last election and, in many cases, changes which honour commitments that you made to the Australian people in the lead-up to the 2007 election. These are fair-minded, reasonable changes which will make our workplaces a lot better and lead to job creation. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context