Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That:

(1)

the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 4), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument No. 306 of 2007 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005; and

(2)

the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument No. 307 of 2007 made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996,be disallowed.

I am moving this motion to disallow two regulations made under the Workplace Relations Act and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act by the previous government. These regulations are the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 4), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument No. 306 of 2007 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, and the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument No. 307 of 2007 made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The regulations were announced in August last year and tabled on 12 February.

These regulations allow for one state branch of one trade union to apply for full registration under the Workplace Relations Act without having to satisfy the usual rules which apply to other industrial organisations, both employer and employee organisations. Industrial legislation provides that a new union cannot be registered if there is an existing organisation covering the same workers which could more effectively represent them, whether it be because this is an existing organisation that the employees could more conveniently belong to or because there is an existing organisation that is substantially identical to it. These rules are well known to practitioners in industrial relations. They have a very special purpose. The very special purpose is to ensure that there is not a multiplicity of organisations covering the same employees and, consequently, the potential for ongoing demarcation disputes. Of course, the federal government believes that demarcation disputes are not in anyone’s interest and it is settled policy across trade unions and employers that no-one seeks to facilitate demarcation disputes. People prefer a situation where there are settled coverage lines. Consequently, these rules have historically been used to ensure that, if there are organisations seeking to cover the same workers, there are tests which address the matter. Those tests are whether or not there is an existing organisation that the employees could more conveniently belong to or whether there is an existing organisation that is substantially identical to the new organisation that is seeking registration.

Under Work Choices, state organisations could be registered federally on a temporary basis to cover workers who used to be covered by state systems but had been drawn into the federal system. This was one of the necessary transitional consequences of the fact that Work Choices was founded on the corporations power of the Commonwealth, a matter upheld by the High Court. Consequently, the scope of Work Choices was beyond that of former industrial relations legislation. Because the scope of Work Choices was beyond former industrial relations legislation there needed to be a set of transitional arrangements for people who, up until that time, had properly viewed themselves as being covered by state industrial relations systems but now, because Work Choices was founded on the corporations power, were to be covered by Work Choices.

In making the move from transitional to federal registration these organisations would have to meet certain criteria, including not breaching the substantially identical rule. There was a system. Given the consequence of Work Choices reaching into areas that had historically been covered by state commissions, there were transitional arrangements but, in moving from transitional to full federal registration, the normal and historic tests, the public policy purpose of which is to ensure that there are settled coverage lines and to minimise demarcation disputes—these settled tests—would be brought to bear on the question of federal registration. The regulations I am moving to disallow today provide that one state branch of one trade union could apply for full registration under the Workplace Relations Act without having to satisfy the substantially identical rule. These regulations also prevent the Australian Industrial Relations Commission from making orders that either body has the right to represent members of the other body for a period of three years.

There are two things substantially wrong with these regulations. Firstly, they are meaningless on their face. They are meaningless on their face because they have been made for one state branch of one union, and that is a union representing nurses in Western Australia. Whilst these regulations say that that state branch of the nurses union can be federally registered, they also say that that branch cannot cover people covered by the federal branch of the nurses union for three years. So these regulations are meaningless on their face. We have in Western Australia a federally registered union with a federal branch there and we have a state union seeking full federal registration. These regulations facilitate that, but then they also state that that state union, when federally registered, cannot cover the members in the federal branch. So they are meaningless on their face. What is it that this so-called federal registration could mean when there is an embargo against covering members that are currently in the federal branch of the Australian Nursing Federation?

Firstly, these regulations are meaningless and confused on their face. They are bad in that sense and they need to be struck down because of it. Secondly, these regulations need to be struck down because they were motivated not by good public policy but by a one-off deal done by the previous government. Of course, the previous government brought Work Choices to this country. It believed in industrial relations extremism. It was the party of Work Choices and it continues to be the party of Work Choices. What motivated the making of these regulations was a special deal, a sweetheart arrangement, for a union that the former federal government viewed as an ally in putting the case for Work Choices. There was no good public policy in this. There was no sense of saying, ‘Let’s have a look at how the industrial relations system could run better.’ This was a politically motivated venture to give a special one-off deal to a state union that the former federal government viewed as an ally in putting the case for Work Choices. This is the worst motivation that can ever be brought by a government to the making of public policy. This is the making of a special deal for people because they publicly agree with you.

I would suggest that members of this place muse on the consequences of this kind of politics if it is allowed to stand and if it is brought to bear in other areas of public policy. Does that mean that the funding of our road programs should be made contingent on special delivery to companies that have argued common cause in the public domain with the federal government? Does that mean that the delivery of our health money should be done on the basis that it will be disproportionately given to those hospital administrators who have joined hand in hand with the federal government? Does that mean, when it comes to the distribution of money and public policy mechanisms for schools, that a federal government should take the view that it will disproportionately benefit those schools whose principals have endorsed the policies of the federal government? There would be a word that people would use in relation to that kind of conduct and that word would be ‘corruption’.

What public policy is supposed to be about is not the special making of deals and the special making of public policy for political allies. What government is supposed to be about is fair rules for everyone. The Rudd Labor government believes in fair rules for everyone. The regulations which I am seeking to disallow today were motivated by the kind of politics I have just described, the kind of politics that says: ‘If there’s someone in an election year who is out there arguing your case then cut any special deal you can. Distort any of the legislative power of government and any of its regulation-making power to do them a special deal. Reward your friends and punish your enemies.’ As I have said, there is a word that describes that conduct and that word is ‘corruption’.

These are regulations meaningless on their face, corrupt in their motivation, and that is why they have to be struck down. What is the consequence of striking these regulations down for the state branch of the Western Australian nurses union? They can still seek federal registration; there is no problem with that. All they have to do is acquit the same rules that would apply to everyone else. That is not a bad ask; it is not a bad outcome. If the Western Australian nurses want federal registration then, with this regulation disallowed, they are required to acquit the same rules that would apply to everyone else—the rules that would apply to a Queensland truck union, to a Victorian retail union or to a New South Wales clerical union. The only thing they will be asked to do is to abide by the same rules that apply to anyone else.

There can be no argument against this disallowance motion, except a continuation of the corrupt motivation that led to these regulations being made. There can be no argument put that suggests that the WA nurses should not abide by the same laws that apply to every other industrial organisation in this country, whether it is an employer or an employee organisation. We on this side of the House, the Rudd Labor government, are seeking this disallowance because we believe in fairness, we believe in the rule of law, we believe in laws being applied equitably. We do not support and will not allow a regulation to stand that was motivated by this kind of corrupt motivation.

In arguing for this disallowance, I note the views of the stakeholders on this matter. Who cares about the health system? All of us care about the health system. Who cares about the health system in Western Australia? Obviously, Western Australian citizens care deeply about whether their health system works well and whether it is at risk of being the subject of disruption because of unnecessary demarcation matters stemming from these regulations. In that regard, I have received correspondence from the Western Australian Minister for Health, outlining his concerns about these changes. In particular, the Minister for Health, in his letter to me, dated 7 February, said:

The Western Australian government is concerned should the new regulations remain in place that they may lead to an increase in demarcation disputes between competing unions and hamper the effective provision of public health services.

The Western Australian government in its state is charged—obviously, in a collaborative arrangement with the federal government—with delivering quality health services to its citizens. It is concerned about these regulations and believes that they should not stand. But there is more than that. From time to time, members on the other side of the House suggest that they are people concerned about the views of the private sector and business. The members who say that they are concerned about these matters might like to note that I have received correspondence from Healthscope, which is a major private sector health services organisation, a major provider of private health services in Western Australia. What is the private sector saying about this matter? What is business saying about this matter, because I anticipate that there may be members in this House who would be thinking to themselves, ‘What is the view of Western Australian business? What are they asking for, what do they care about, what are they interested in, and what should I say in this place if I am going to represent the views of Western Australian business?’ Let me give them the answer. Anyone who has been trying in this place to represent the views of Western Australian business should note that Healthscope has written to me and said:

Healthscope is one of Australia’s leading private healthcare operators providing medical and surgical rehabilitation and psychiatric services in each state and territory. Healthscope currently employ more than 16,000 employees. Healthscope is concerned that these regulations may lead to demarcation disputes and turf wars between unions and may disrupt our ability to provide health services in our Western Australian facilities.

These regulations should be disallowed. Why should they be disallowed? I bring three perspectives to bear. First, on their face, the regulations are a nonsense and they should be struck down for that reason. Second, they represent a special deal cut for purely political purposes by a desperate government in an election year, as part of its campaign as the party of Work Choices, to find anyone who would argue its case with it. The regulations come from a motivation which was not pure public policy but a motivation which was infected by political concerns. Indeed, it was not infected—‘infected’ is the wrong word; ‘infected’ suggests that there was some other concern and there was an infection. It was the only concern. There was not one regard for public policymaking and not one regard for fairness. This was about politics, pure and simple. As I have said, if this kind of decision making was in government overall, people would use the word ‘corruption’ to describe it. Third, it does not disadvantage the Western Australian nurses union. They can still seek federal registration, should they choose to do so. They just have to abide by the laws of the country. That is not a hard ask. We are asked to abide by the laws of the country—I am, the minister sitting at the table is, the opposition representatives in this parliament are asked to abide by the laws of this parliament, as are the people sitting in the gallery. I do not think it is an unfair thing to ask the Western Australian nurses union to abide by the laws of the country.

Finally, but not insignificantly, the people who care about ensuring that Western Australian citizens get access to health services when they need them—the people who run the public health system and the people who run a substantial component of the private health system—are saying loud and clear that they are fearful that these regulations would compromise their ability to provide services to Western Australians when they need them. This is a matter that should be of considerable concern to all members of this parliament but most particularly, I would suggest, to Western Australian members of this parliament. Obviously, we want all citizens of this nation to be able to access quality health services. And something that, in the eyes of the people who run the health system, stands in the way of citizens accessing quality health services without disruption when they need them is obviously bad and should be struck down.

On those grounds, I ask the House to endorse this disallowance motion. Frankly, apart from putting the case that an organisation which spoke up for Work Choices should be disproportionately and specially rewarded, there is no argument against this disallowance motion.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion to disallow the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 4) and the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 1) is an ugly example of the payback for which the Labor Party is renowned. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Deputy Prime Minister threatened business last year with injury if they dared enter into the industrial relations debate. Retribution and payback is the mantra of the Labor Party and the mantra of the unions. Why would a government seek at this time in the national debates on the national issues to make as a priority of government business the removal of the right of a branch of a national union to be registered in its own right because that is what its individual members wanted? Why would a government take away the right and the choice of an organisation to be registered federally? What would possess a government to make this a priority? This disallowance motion is a striking example of how the Rudd government will continue to be the quiet deceivers. The minister pretends to consult with business and the broader community, but her modus operandi is straight from the Graham Richardson play book Whatever it Takes: whatever it takes to give the unions the payback that they seek for funding the Labor Party’s election in the last election. They provided $30 million of funding to get the Rudd government elected—and it is payback time. The union bosses want to see some value for their money, so the first people they pick on happen to be a branch of a union that sought federal registration. What a crime! Fancy wanting to act in accordance with the wishes of your members!

The Labor Party claim today to be a party of fairness and choice and freedom of association, and that they are going to stand up to union control. That is not the Labor Party. They do not believe in those words; they only adopted those words because they were the words of the Liberal Party. They knew those words were popular with the Australian public. They knew that they represented the aspirations and hopes of the Australian people, so they adopted that rhetoric. The defining characteristic of the Rudd Labor government will be the fact that they do not believe in the words and the rhetoric they now espouse. Their lack of belief will be their defining characteristic and Labor will revert to type.

In today’s example of the Australian Nursing Federation, Industrial Union of Workers Perth, an organisation sought to strike out on an independent course. They wanted to break free from the iron grip of the faceless union bosses on the east coast. Western Australian nurses were unhappy with the heavy-handed tactics of the head office of the nurses federation. They were particularly unhappy in relation to the campaign against Australian workplace agreements. The Australian Financial Review at the time pointed out the view of the Western Australian branch. The chief executive, Mr Olson, said the new regulations—that is, the ability to be registered federally:

... removed an insurmountable hurdle for us to try to achieve federal registration.

He said:

We want to have the autonomy to represent our members’ interests.

And that is what the Labor Party is denying them today. It is denying the Western Australian branch the autonomy to represent their members’ interests. As the Financial Review pointed out:

The move is a blow to the union movement, because the WA branch opposed the use of members’ funds for advertising supporting Labor’s plan to scrap Work Choices.

So as soon as somebody speaks out against the Labor and union campaign, it is payback time. It is retribution. It is the old mantra: retribution and payback.

The Western Australian branch of the federation is in fact one of the few unions—probably the only union—in the country to actually increase its membership. Members might not be aware of the extent of the decline in union membership in this country. It is at an all-time low, with only 15 per cent of the private sector workforce being union members—fewer than four out of five workers in the private sector choose to join a union. In fact, in the period August 2005 to August 2006 there was a decrease of over 125,900 members in unions across Australia. In just one 12-month period there was a decrease of 125,900 union members. But, of course, the number of employees in Australia increased over the same period—there was an increase of 250,300 employees. So, while there are more employees in the workplace than ever before, the number of union members is decreasing. Between August 2005 and August 2006 union density—the number of union members—decreased amongst both males and females; decreased in both the public sector and the private sector—in the public sector down from 47 per cent to 42 per cent, in the private sector from 16.7 per cent to 15.5 per cent; decreased amongst both workers with leave entitlements and workers without leave entitlements; decreased amongst both full-time workers and part-time workers; and decreased in every state and territory except Tasmania and the Northern Territory. The absolute number of union members decreased in every cohort, with Tasmania and the Northern Territory being the only exceptions.

So you have a union branch—the Nursing Federation of Western Australia—actually increasing its membership, obviously due to the fact that they were providing members with the services they wanted. They were listening to their members and acting in accordance with their members’ wishes, and their members did not want their membership fees going to fund the misleading Your Rights at Work campaign. They did not want to spend that money that way. They, in fact, supported Australian workplace agreements, as is their right, and yet now they are being punished for going against the union heavies.

Cognisant of the failure of the union head office to deliver for the nurses across Australia, the Western Australian branch sought federal registration so they could be an entity in their own right, and this was granted in September last year. The 15,000 members of the Western Australian branch of the Nursing Federation did not want to be subject to the dictates of head office, forced to pay fees for campaigns that they did not believe in and that they did not support. The Western Australian nurses did not support the misleading union scare campaign against Howard government workplace reforms, so should they now be denied the right to say where their membership fees will go? Are they to be denied the right to have their own voice, denied the right to speak up and oppose what they do not believe in?

The Western Australian nurses, like many other Western Australians, understood the many benefits that had come from industrial relations reforms. Those members, like other Western Australians, remembered the bad old days when the unions were in charge of workplaces in Western Australia. Those nurses, like other Western Australians, remembered the bad old days when unions would bring workplaces to their knees. They remember the seventies and eighties in the Pilbara, when there was a strike every three days. One iron ore site had a strike every three days—over 157 strikes in one year at one site. The mining industry was almost brought to its knees in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s by the actions of the unions, and the Western Australian nurses remember how industrial relations reforms, including the right to enter into an individual statutory agreement, kept the unions at bay. Whether they used AWAs or did not use AWAs, the mere presence of them kept the unions at bay. If the unions made extreme demands, an employer could say, ‘We have an option to put people on individual statutory agreements,’ and all of a sudden the unions would back off. They would start talking about productivity and how they could work with the employers, and employees could go through a period of industrial harmony. In fact, in Western Australia we have had one of the longest periods of industrial harmony in the state’s history. Australia has now experienced one of the longest periods of industrial harmony in over a hundred years.

Why would the Western Australian nurses want to be part of a campaign that rolled back the kinds of reforms that have enabled Western Australia to be a booming economy, taking advantage of the extraordinary growth in the mining sector? If we had not had workplace reforms in Western Australia, the mining boom would have passed us by, because our workplaces would not have been able to guarantee supply of product and guarantee labour supply to the emerging markets of China and India. The Rudd government dismisses the mining boom as just a happy coincidence, but had we not had in place a deregulated workplace and the kind of industrial relations reforms that we have witnessed over the last decade the mining boom would have passed us by. There would have been other markets in which Chinese, Indian and Japanese buyers could seek their products.

The nurses in Western Australia see the benefit of industrial harmony and they chose not to be part of a misleading advertising campaign. They are now being punished for that. This motion to disallow Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 4) and Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 1) is tragic not only for individual nurses in Western Australia but for unions and union membership across the country. At a time when state registered unions in Australia are attempting to maintain their relevance and when they should be trying to improve their services and their capacity to effectively represent their members, we have got the Deputy Prime Minister seeking to block the path for state registered unions to be part of the government’s new workplace relations system. They are trying to block out unions who do not toe the Labor Party line. The Western Australian nurses union, on any measure, could only be described as a highly effective union which, over the years, has represented its members and its members’ interests—and it wanted to continue to do that unfettered by the ‘command central’ tactics of federal union control.

Today’s efforts by the Deputy Prime Minister to disallow these regulations have placed an insurmountable hurdle in front of state registered unions wanting to achieve federal registration. Labor is, in effect, locking out state unions from the new workplace relations system and blocking them from representing their membership. This is a taste of what is to come: unions dictating Labor Party policy, unions thumbing their noses at calls for wage restraint, unions thumbing their noses at basic freedoms and a right to choose—and all channelled through the Labor Party as government policy. The Labor Party should be condemned for this disallowance motion. It is taking away the right of a state based entity to register federally and be part of the new workplace relations system and taking away the right of a union to effectively represent its members. Shame on the Labor Party. It is a tragic day for unions, employees and employers across this country.

Question put:

That the motion (Ms Gillard’s) be agreed to.