Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'd be delighted to. The subject matter of the trade union movement goes hand in glove with the substance of this legislation as to why the Labor Party opposes schedule 6 of this legislation in relation to secondary boycotts. At its heart it talks about how the trade union movement espouses values of collective action, collective strength and a fearless fight for rights and obligations and entitlements for working Australians. Just as this government loves to try and dress up their faux defence of the ideals of the trade union movement, what we see in this legislation is a veiled attempt by this government to try and espouse a phoney notion by introducing these incredibly onerous penalties under the secondary boycott provision—schedule 6 of the act—on the basis of fairness. Well, it's not fairness at all. We all know what it is, and it's appropriate that we call it out for what it is. It's a subversive attempt, through backdoor means, to subvert the aims of the trade union movement when it comes to notions of sympathy strikes. That's why I am delighted to stand up here and support the shadow Assistant Treasurer and those who speak so eloquently, like the member for Brand, in relation to the amendment, which, at a substance, makes clear that the House ought to condemn the government for pushing ahead with its agenda, which will worsen inequality, including increasing penalties for sympathy strikes to hundreds of times the size of other industrial action penalties.

The devil is in the detail here. This is not in any way, shape or form legislation that is designed to do what they propose it does, which is actually serve as a deterrent to all corporations or third persons from trading with a fourth person—that is, secondary boycott. It is increased from $750,000 to $10 million. All we need to do is go to comparisons for similar activity under the Fair Work Act. This is really where the rubber hits the road in relation to why this provision in schedule 6 is so rightly opposed by the Labor Party. It's because in the Fair Work Act at least we see penalties for what they are. Equivalent provisions under the Fair Work Act are subject to far less severe penalties, with a maximum of 60 penalty units—that is, about $12,600.

What we see here, in this veiled attempt at nobbling the trade union movement through the secondary boycott provision increase in penalty, is that the maximum penalty for a secondary boycott is almost 800 times higher than the maximum penalty for unprotected industrial action. So why don't we just call this for what it is—an attempt to take out from under the feet of the trade union movement an approach which is simply about exercising an industrial right that has existed for decades. These laws are typically used against unions that are engaged in sympathy strikes. The numbers speak for themselves in relation to the results as published by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

We are not opposing for opposing's sake. We are supporting 11 of 12 schedules to the bill, but what we do not do, will not do and will not let pass in this place is any policy that moves Australia further away from not only international law and best practice but fundamentally something that looks at protecting rights and entitlements of working men and women in this country. We have taken significant steps, which this government have adopted somewhat belatedly, in relation to bringing into parity with international best practice appropriate penalties for breaches of consumer law and anticompetition law. We've made it very clear that we think that the penalties imposed for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law ought be in line with the other provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act and be increased to $10 million.

We are also, quite proudly, the party of competition, because competition fundamentally means better outcomes for Australian families. It means lower prices, higher wages and better quality products for Australian families. It means a more productive, more innovative and job-rich economy. But we will not stand here and take any part in endorsing legislation which has the practical effect of hindering genuine economic competition in this country, including the secondary boycott provisions and the government's dangerous effects test legislation.

I'd like to come back to the secondary boycotts because I really am of the view that this is where the proposed legislation is at its most insidious. As we know, a secondary boycott involves a person in concert with another person engaging in conduct that hinders or prevents a third person from supplying or acquiring goods and services to or from that fourth person. The schedule that is the subject of contention increases that penalty to an enormous amount—$10 million, which is three times the total value of the benefits obtained. And the International Labour Organization permitting sympathy strikes means that this change is entirely inconsistent with our party's policies to have high penalties for anticompetitive and anticonsumer conduct in line with international best practice.

Again, I just can't help but see a most consistent pattern of egregious behaviour by this government in the many and varied ways it seeks to dud Australian workers. Not only does it seek to usurp a fundamental international legal right in relation to sympathy strikes or secondary boycotts through this schedule, but also we know well that this government will not move an inch—out of ignorance, out of obstinacy or by just plain being completely off the Richter scale when it comes to anything remotely like an ethical compass—in relation to penalty rates. This government stands here and pretends to back in this legislation on the basis of levelling the playing field, when we know perfectly well that that's not the case. It is designed to try to subvert the rights of the trade union movement at the same time that it is perfectly content to cut penalty rates for up to 700,000 Australians in the retail, hospitality, fast-food and pharmacy sector. That is, at last count, over 120,000 to 150,000 Western Australians and something in the range of about 15,000 workers in my federal electorate of Perth.

So, get this: at the same time that we're seeing the rug pulled out from under the feet of Australian workers we see this government being completely consistent in its hypocrisy in relation to deciding its okay to find the money in the budget to dole out $65 billion worth of tax cuts, of which we know that at least $7 billion—probably closer to $10 billion—goes to the big four banks. We see a government entirely content to prop up its current cabinet in a manner that is inconsistent with the way it has treated former ministers of this cabinet. We see a government that is entirely content to back in the big end of town in relation to these tax cuts and at the same time jeopardise the rights and entitlements of working Australians.

The great shame in relation to this proposed legislation is that it does a complete disservice to an otherwise noble aim of this great party, the Australian Labor Party, in relation to measures that have consistently boosted competition since the Whitlam government was elected back in 1974. We see from the Labor Party a genuine and honest attempt, every single step of the way, to introduce measures into legislation that actually promote competition. We saw it in the Trade Practices Act. We saw it under Prime Minister Keating, with Professor Fred Hilmer's comprehensive review of competition policy, known of course as the Hilmer review. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments there were further important changes to competition and consumer settings and an enormously significant change in the replacement of the Trade Practices Act, which had served us tremendously well for over 35 years, with the Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Consumer Law is not only a groundbreaking piece of legislation in this place but also something achieved by way of cooperative reform between the states and territories, creating a consistent national approach across a range of consumer issues such as unfair contract terms, consumer rights and product safety. So, we have long recognised that effective competition policy lies at the heart of not only a well-functioning economy but also, fundamentally, a playing field and safety net that protects Australian families.

We have always understood that a well-functioning economy is the best vehicle for ensuring that we lift the living standards and lift the prosperity levels of everyday working Australians. We know this government has it wrong every single step of the way, as demonstrated daily by its almost breathtaking levels of hypocrisy. Schedule 6 to this bill is no better than that and no better than a sneaky backdoor subversive attempt to detract from the rights and entitlements of everyday working Australians.

See this speech in context