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

My apologies, Madam Speaker. Far be it from me to call you 'Deputy Speaker'. There is no piece of legislation that demonstrates the difference more between this side of the House and the other side of the House than legislation that deals with workers or industrial relations—and this is one such a piece of legislation. We heard the Treasurer today make a presentation on the economy to this parliament. The shadow Treasurer, in responding to it, highlighted the fact that we on this side of the House do not agree with the Treasurer's categorisation and stereotyping of the Australian people as 'lifters and leaners'. The Treasurer told the Australian people that living standards may fall. I believe that the Treasurer would like to see living standards fall, with workers getting less, having poorer benefits and being the ones who have to carry this government on its back.

The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 amends the Fair Work Act by proposing an additional approval requirement for enterprise agreements that are not greenfield agreements. The requirement is that the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the new productivity improvements in the workplace are discussed during the bargaining process. All of the existing agreement approval requirements under the Fair Work Act will be retained. This is extra red tape. It is something that will obviously not work and that is designed to ensure that there really is no genuine consultation.

It is argued that the bill will provide guidance and ensure greater transparency regarding the circumstances in which a protected action ballot can be made. But, in actual fact, I believe that it provides for less transparency, because currently the Fair Work Commission must make a protected action ballot order if it is satisfied that an application has been made and the applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. The amendment proposal requires that the FWC have regard to a range of non-exhaustive factors to guide its assessment of whether an application for an order is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Further, it provides that the FWC must not make a protected action ballot order where it is satisfied that the claim of the applicants for the order is manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on the productivity of that workplace. Madam Speaker, I ask you: how can the FWC assess this?

I put on the record that this legislation is another example of a broken election promise. This government says one thing before the election and does a totally different thing after the election. This bill is inconsistent with what the Abbott government stated before the election. It is a bill that is poorly constructed. It is bad policy. It is something that will not be enforceable. It is poorly worded. And it will result in no change, other than the addition of red tape, inconsistency and expense. It is a brazen attack on workers' democratic right to take protected industrial action. We have seen this with every piece of industrial relations legislation proposed by opposite that comes through this parliament. It is packaged as one thing but in actual fact is designed to be an attack on workers' rights. It is designed to be an attack on workers' conditions. It is designed to be an attack on workers' pay. Those on the other side of this House need to come to terms with the fact that Australian industry and the Australian economy will operate best when there is consultation and agreement between all parties. It is not about squashing workers and making sure that they are treated in a way that will lead to—as the Treasurer highlighted this week—falling living standards because this government is attacking their wages.

The Treasurer really needs to get out into the real world. It is all very well asking Australians to spend more; but, if he is attacking their wages, how can they do that if their wages are falling? Figures have been released this week showing that the cost of living has increased, Australians are buying less with their money and that real wages have fallen. So I see this as just another attack on workers. It is ambiguous and misunderstands the key elements of our workplace relations system and reads exactly like a bill would if the minister had no idea and was frustrated that he had passed exactly zero of the five bills he had introduced prior to this one. I believe that the minister really does not understand workplace relations; but, if he does, he just sees it as a way to suppress wages and conditions.

At the start of my contribution to this debate, I mentioned that this was just another broken promise. I would just like to highlight that, because before the election the government was saying that there would be no changes to workers' wages and conditions and that they support workers' wages and conditions. Every single time a piece of industrial relations legislation has come before this parliament, we have seen the government attacking it.

If the government is serious about addressing productivity, it should have unions and managers or employers involved in the process. This legislation is really about unions. It is about considering how to improve productivity by only talking to one part of the equation. I believe, as I think those of us on this side of the House do, that you get the best outcome in any sort of industrial relations discussions if you have got both the employer and the employee sitting down together and working it out; you do not have things dictated by one side of the equation.

I really think that the government misses out on what workplace relations is about. It is opting for this new requirement, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the process of bargaining for, and eventually completing, an enterprise agreement. The government's proposal does nothing whatsoever except adding increased costs and red tape and creating uncertainty. If the government can explain to the Australian people how uncertainty is going to increase productivity, I would be interested to listen to that. That is because my understanding is that where uncertainty exists you are going to have less economic activity and you are going to have lower productivity.

This government is driven by ideology. It really has no commitment to coming to terms with a real solution, actually increasing productivity and recognising that workers have rights. The government's intention is not actually to deal with productivity, but instead to continue to crusade against workers by imposing requirements on unions, while providing options for employers to avoid the requirements. It is about pushing real wages down further and about making workers the lifters; then those that are on the other side of the equation can just sit back and be the leaners—not that the Treasurer would like to put that to the Australian people. There is also a risk, because of the fact that this bill is so poorly constructed, that the bill could be used as a veto power by employers. In actual fact, it will be impossible to actually get to a situation where there can be any agreement on a matter.

By amending section 443 in the way the government has, it has imposed a different and higher standard test on unions to take protected industrial action over and above the test in section 413, which employers are subject to in the case of employer lockouts. That is anything but fair. It is imperative in any piece of legislation that it should be inherently fair. Unfortunately, it is not fair in this legislation. The government said before the election that workers and businesses must be genuine in their attempts to bargain so that realistic improvements in employment conditions can occur for everyone. Well, this is a one-sided piece of legislation that is not about ensuring that improvements in employment conditions and the workplace can occur for everyone. It is about a very one-sided approach and a very unfair approach to workplace relations.

I am interested to hear from the government about what will happen if an employer stalls the bargaining. What is the solution there? How will that be dealt with? I have heard nothing in any of the contributions from those opposite to allay fears that I have that this will be a scenario which will be manifestly bad for workers. The government has introduced a new provision that means that the Fair Work Commission must not take protective action ballots if it is satisfied that the applicant's claim or claims are manifestly excessive and if, having regard to conditions of the workplace and the industry in which the employer operates, it would have a significant adverse impact on the productivity of the workplace. The decision as to what will improve and decrease productivity in the workplace can be very subjective. For instance, I believe undertaking a training course increases the productivity of workers because they are better skilled and have better knowledge, but the employer might see that that is time when workers are absent from the workplace.

I have to say that this is very, very poor legislation. It will do nothing to improve productivity in this country. Rather, it is legislation that was introduced into this parliament by zealots on the other side of this House who are all about inflicting pain on workers and more about ensuring that employers have the final say when it comes to anything in relation to the workplace, rather than through consultation and agreement. (Time expired)

See this speech in context