Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Just before the member for Shortland goes, I will just tell her a couple of things about this bill. This bill will is basically based on our coalition paper of May 2013. Now, I am not the smartest person in this House, but I think May 2013 was actually before September 2013, which was when the election was. If we got it out and about there, it qualifies as something that we said before the election. The member for Shortland also suggested that this bill will give an employer a veto to frustrate bargaining by refusing to talk about productivity—that is simply false. This bill does not give an employer or employees a veto power. The good faith bargaining framework will apply to productivity discussions in the same way that it applies to other discussions in all forms of bargaining. If any particular party does not engage in the bargaining process, good faith orders may be available. The bill does not alter that at all. The member for Shortland, who was begging us for information, has now walked out of the chamber. I hope she gets the Hansard and reads these things here. This bill does not make it more or less likely that the bargaining will be deadlocked. All the bill does is require the parties to discuss productivity. It does not require agreement or consensus to be reached.

Fair dinkum! That was 15 minutes I will never get back in my life. I would rather have cigarettes put out on my eyes than sit through that again!

This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 by promoting harmonious and productive enterprise bargaining. This bill will require discussions about improving workplace productivity to occur during enterprise bargaining. Fancy that, when we are talking about wages increases, someone from a company or the employees might actually want to find out how we are going to increase productivity, how we are going to improve productivity and therefore how the company is going to make more money. This bill will ensure that applicants for protected action ballots have first engaged in genuine and meaningful talks and that the claims that are being advanced are not unrealistic. This bill will require the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that productivity improvements were at least discussed during the enterprise bargaining process before it can be agreed upon. This bill backs the coalition's policy of having fair and productive workplaces.

In May 2013, the coalition launched its paper, The Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws, as part of our election commitment—that was before the election. Our policy states:

Our policy will help make Australian workplaces even better, by improving the Fair Work laws to provide a stable, fair and prosperous future for all.

The coalition believe in reward for effort—and shouldn't we all believe in that? We believe in protecting people's jobs. The member for Shortland is propagating this idea that we are out there with the twirly end of a moustache, trying to be Dick Dastardly and ruin everyone's Christmas and kill people's jobs off so that we can be pure evil. It is just a ridiculous notion. But, at the same time, the coalition understand the need for healthy businesses to create opportunities for workers to get ahead and to ensure that nobody is left behind. I have some more things to say about this later on. We have already introduced a range of reforms—the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 and the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.

As it currently stands, there is no requirement in the Fair Work Act that productivity be discussed in negotiating an EBA. Can you believe that: currently, you do not even have to discuss productivity! This change will ensure that the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that productivity improvements were discussed during the EBA discussions. No official agreement has to be met, but at least a discussion about improving productivity can take place as part of the bargaining. The Fair Work Act will also require a secret ballot of employees to be conducted before the protected industrial action can take place. This action must, of course, be approved by the Fair Work Commission. The commission must now be satisfied that the applicant has been 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement'. This is not actually defined in the Fair Work Act.

This bill will provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Fair Work Commission must factor into discussions. The amendments will also provide that the Fair Work Commission must not authorise a protected union ballot, if it is satisfied the claims over industrial action are excessive or would have made an adverse impact on workplace productivity. These are just common sense changes. Industrial action should not be the first resort; it should the last resort option after negotiations have taken place.

We have recently seen reports of protected action ballot orders made and protected industry action threatened in pursuit of claims that would increase the salary package for marine engineers in Port Hedland—I heard the member for Corangamite talking about this—by around 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated that the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of the existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees work only six months of the year on a week-on week-off roster. That is an extreme and very obvious example, but these things play out in everyone's workplace.

Similar irresponsible conduct was being shown where industrial action was taken by the MUA and the MUA marine operators in the offshore oil and gas sector in Western Australia in 2010. These negotiations resulted in 30 per cent wage increases in just under four years with no productivity benefits at all, following industrial action being taken. Just months following this case, the MUA brought Australian ports to a halt in pursuit of a $46,000 wage increase for workers already earning over $100,000 for 185 work days per year.

In February 2014, Martin Ferguson, the former resources minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments, in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia said:

We must improve our productivity and reduce the costs of doing business in Australia.

…      …   …

High labour costs and low productivity are an unsustainable mix. And therefore – elements of the Fair Work Act must be looked at.

To me, that is just common sense. I do not know why we are having this argument. That is just common sense. Further, he said:

A workplace relations system that drives investment to other countries is in nobody’s interest; certainly not those union members and their families who will be bargaining themselves out of a future.

Now, of course, unions would argue that these changes will make it harder for industrial action to take place. But these measures are common sense. Surely, both employer and employee would agree that both sides need to mediate before industrial action occurs? Unions are saying that these changes will make applications for protected ballots more costly, but this cost is only towards the union. Overall, these proposals will not change employee's rights to take protected industrial action during bargaining.

These amendments are the last of our election commitment to improve the Fair Work laws. Only the coalition understands that a nation's wealth is produced by businesses, not by people and not by government. Business must make a profit; business is not a charity. You must make a profit to keep on employing and paying people.

The government is serious about providing opportunities for business in Australia—to be free of regulation, free to employ and free to prosper. These reforms will help build Australia's prosperity for future generations to come.

I think the Kelly report came out and said that wages should not be correlated with the profitability of a firm. In the first 10 years of our federation we decided then, no matter what the profitability of the firm, that we would be a high-wage country. You can have high wages if you have low input costs and high productivity. In the last parliament we installed the carbon tax, which made our input costs go through the roof. Excessive wage demands make your input costs go through the roof. Another issue is productivity. If either of those two goes out the window, then you lose money. If you have high input costs and lower productivity, business goes elsewhere. It is that simple: we are a high-wage nation. We have new challenges, new and massive opportunities to deliver into the Asian century. Productivity is the key to this. We have to work smarter, smoother and be more flexible.

We have signed free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. Minister Robb and Minister Bishop are going all over the place to get these things organised so that we can get to the table. Free trade agreements do not deliver the goods. But they get you a seat at the table, to work. It gives you an opportunity to present and impress. What you then have to do is deliver. It is pointless Minister Robb and Minister Bishop going around the world and signing these things if Australians will not work together. So we have to be productive, we have to be smarter and more fluid in the way we do things. That comes down to individual workplaces. Take the MUA's door completely out of it and bring it down to your own workplace, your own office and ask: are we doing everything we can?

I will tell you a quick story. I used to have an auction centre. I did an auction one night and Michael Klim, the 100-metre swimmer, and Grant Hackett were there. I said, 'It's very funny that you should be here at this time because, when I open my shed in the morning'—Grant Hackett's best time was about 15 minutes in those days—'it takes about 15 minutes to open it and, in the afternoon when it is time to go home, they beat Michael Klim's record, by shutting the shed in less than 50 seconds.' It is about being productive, about getting to work and when you are at work starting at eight, not just getting to work at eight.

We have an opportunity to diversify. We are a service centre of excellence and 80 per cent of our economy is service based, yet it only represents 15 per cent of our exports. We must be more competitive in this space, we must be more flexible and this legislation is just common sense. It really is just common sense. So, with those few words, I would just like to thank the House and say that I back this bill 100 per cent.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context