Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I've pointed out those two facts and I appreciate that the opposition don't want to hear that. They don't want to look at their own budget figures and they certainly don't want to look at the analysis from Professor Wooten from the University of Melbourne, which shows centralised bargaining actually produces lower wage increases than enterprise bargaining does.

There have been tremendous concerns about this bill, particularly in relation to the pattern-bargaining provisions of the bill, right across the business community and, indeed, across the education sector as well—of course I have much to do with that as shadow education spokesperson. I know that the education sector, particularly the higher education sector, is concerned that the impacts of the bill will lead to pattern bargaining across universities. The universities themselves are large organisations that typically have thousands of staff, and sometimes many thousands of staff—130,000 altogether.

Government members interjecting—

And quite rightly! Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I know they're interjecting again over on the other side. They're calling out; they don't want to hear what I have to say. Indeed, they don't want to hear what the higher education sector has to say. They pointed out that the enterprise model, which they have presently, takes into account the financial health of the university, the unique student cohorts, the research profiles and the geographic location, which all helps in aiding an enterprise-bargaining agreement. This is versus an industrywide agreement, which is what this bill would lean towards, where you can't take into account those unique circumstances. It is just purely ridiculous to say that a university in Port Macquarie is exactly the same as a university in Parkville. They're not; there are different circumstances, the cost of living is different, and there are different research priorities, geographies, student cohorts and the like. Quite rightly, those academic staff should be capable enough to bargain with those university leaders themselves rather than being told what to do.

Secondly, I would refer to what the business community more broadly has said. The business community has almost unanimously been critical of this bill. I will just point out a few comments, because I was here at question time and the minister was very proudly saying how he has consulted with everybody. I can tell him that he may have had meetings with them but he certainly didn't listen to them or act on what they said. I will read out what a few of them have said. First up is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Andrew McKellar. He has warned that the compulsory multi-employer bargaining in this bill will lead to a seismic shift in Australia's workplace relations system, reversing decades of tripartite consensus. And he says that it will lead to more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust with their enterprises.

Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group said the proposed changes to Australia's workplaces risk taking the country down a path of more strikes, fewer jobs, centralised decision-making and less trust with their enterprises. The Business Council of Australia said:

Australians deserve a system that delivers higher wages and better jobs, with diverse businesses that can innovate, deliver the best services and products and grow the economy.

This will not achieve those outcomes, instead we are staring down the barrel of a more complex system that runs the risk of stifling innovation and fossilising the economy.

The COSBOA CEO says the legislation is a trojan horse, as emphasised by the CEO of ACCI, for the empowerment of unions in every workplace in Australia. I could just go on and on in relation to the business community sentiment.

There is one stakeholder, though, who has given a positive review of this bill, and I'm sure those opposite will be very pleased about this, because this person is a very big donor to them. It is none other than John Setka from the CFMMEU, the man who's probably been subject to more findings of breaking the law than any other union leader in Australian history. He has said he's very impressed by Tony Burke's bill—incredibly impressed. He's absolutely stoked about the bill, because he knows he'll now get into every single one of those businesses, creeping into those small businesses, into the tradie shops, into all the other smaller construction houses which presently are just getting on with the job, trying to do their job and provide good conditions for their employees.

This is not a good bill. It is being rushed through this parliament. It hasn't had the scrutiny it deserves, and it deserves to be voted down. It will do exactly the opposite of what it presents itself as. It will not secure more jobs. It will not secure better pay. We can be certain of that. To the contrary, we're going to get lower pay, we're going to get less-secure jobs and we're going to get more distrust between business and employees. It's almost a guarantee that we will have more strikes in this country. And it's almost a guarantee that prices are going to increase as well.

The government likes to say that they're doing everything they can to get on top of inflation. Ha! That's a joke. Almost everything they do is exacerbating inflationary pressures, and this will do that equally. So, this is not a good bill. It should be rejected. I haven't even touched on the abolition of the ABCC. In the past, when it was last abolished, that led to an increase of 56 per cent in disputes with the construction sector. For that, as well, the bill should be rejected. But overall it's not a good bill. It sets Australia back. It puts us back decades in terms of our industrial relations system and should be firmly rejected.

See this speech in context