Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Stirling proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of Government policy to address increasing unemployment.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since 1 January this year, 80,000 Australians have lost their jobs. That is well over 1,200 jobs lost per day. This catastrophic figure confirms the Deputy Prime Minister as the Australian empress of unemployment—a minister who inherited the best employment outlook of any minister in the postwar period but who has started to comprehensively squander the legacy that she inherited. This is a minister who is obsessed with rewriting Australia’s employment laws, to create an industrial utopia policed by Sharan Burrow, but who displays no concern for the rising tide of unemployed under her watch.

Worse than being unconcerned about this issue, the government is taking actions that will make this issue much, much worse. The Senate is currently discussing laws that will radically change Australia’s industrial relations system. If the laws are kept in their current form, they will make the unemployment problem worse. They will throw more Australians onto the dole queue. Labor needs to listen to this side of the House. Those on the other side of the House remain the experts on industrial relations. It is mother’s milk to them. They live it, they breathe it. But we on this side of the House, in the Liberal and National parties, are the experts on employment. We are the experts on creating jobs. We understand how jobs are actually created in Australia, and that is why, in the years of the Howard government, 2.2 million jobs were created. We understand that those jobs were created by allowing the private sector the latitude to go out and do what it does best, and that is create employment. What the government does not understand is that everybody in this country cannot be employed by the public sector. It is the private sector that creates jobs, and it needs to be given the tools to do so.

I want to run through some of the changes that we would like to see within this legislation. We want those changes to do two things. Firstly, we want them to draw Labor back to the policy that they took to the people prior to the last election. It was a very detailed policy and it outlined things that they would do and things that they would not do. Secondly, we would like the changes to take out the worst job-destroying aspects of the Fair Work Bill—the things in the bill that go too far and the things that are going to make what is a very difficult employment situation in Australia much, much worse.

The first amendment that the government must accept is changes to their right of entry regime. Labor made very explicit promises before the last election that they would not change right of entry in Australia. I will go through what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has said, because it is very instructive. The Prime Minister and his minister for employment said, prior to the last election, in a joint press release:

Federal Labor will maintain the existing right of entry provisions … Right of entry rules remain.

Julia Gillard said on 28 August 2007:

We will make sure that current right of entry provisions stay. We understand that entering on the premises of an employer needs to happen in an orderly way. We will keep the right of entry provisions.

On 28 May, after the election, in a speech to Master Builders Australia, she said:

We promised to retain the current right of entry framework and this promise too will be kept.

Finally—and this is without a doubt my personal favourite—the minister said, on 7 October 2007, speaking specifically about her promise to keep right of entry laws in place:

If you’d like me to pledge to resign, sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph … give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you’d like.

She said would be delivering the policy as outlined. Later on she went on to reiterate that the current right of entry laws would be maintained.

Yet we find in this bill that the rights of unions, firstly, to enter a workplace for discussions and, secondly—and I think even more appallingly—to access the records of non union members are greatly expanded. The bill, as it currently stands, allows union officials to view any record, including the records of non union members, when they are investigating a suspected breach of the law in relation to one of their members. These records could include deeply personal records. They could include salary details, pay rates, super fund contributions, warnings, medical certificates, disciplinary interviews, licences, criminal background checks, garnishee orders, family support payments—anything that could possibly be recorded in someone’s employment file.

The current provisions, the provisions that the government promised they would keep, restrict union officials to looking at the records of union members only. We believe, on this side of the House, that all employees have a right to privacy; they have a right to have their private information respected and they have a right to control who views their employment records. These records do contain personal and sensitive information and I would urge the government to reconsider their ill-founded provisions in this bill that allow union officials access to such private information. There is absolutely no basis for a union official to be given such privileged and special powers. We will make sure that appropriate checks and balances remain, and we will move amendments to this bill that ensure that union officials can only see the records of a non union member when specific permission is given by that employee that their records may be viewed.

The second amendment that must be accepted is in relation to the right of entry that a union official may have to the workplace for discussions. As I said, Labor were explicit in the promise that they made about right of entry. This promise has proved to be false and empty, because the new bill massively expands the right of unions to go into workplaces. The current law, the law that was promised to be kept, restricts access to unions who were party to the industrial instrument, such as an award that covers the workplace.

The government promises that, under Labor, all workers will be free to decide whether or not to join and be represented by a union or to participate in collective activities. That is an important principle, and it is a principle—a principle of freedom of association—that is supported by this side of the House also. We believe that employees in a workplace should have the right to choose who represents them and the extent to which a union may be involved in their workplace. We believe in giving employees choice and in respecting their rights and decisions.

Our amendment to the Fair Work Bill will allow employees to democratically decide if they want a union in their workplace, and which union that would be, before entry can occur. This would apply in a workplace where there is currently no union presence or where a union other than the existing union wants to enter.

I turn now to one of the other most outrageous breaches of Labor’s commitments from prior to the last election. This is in the area of compulsory arbitration. Labor explicitly promised there would be no compulsory arbitration under their industrial relations system. This promise has proved to be completely false, but I will remind the House about what Labor said prior to the last election. Minister Gillard, on 30 May 2007, speaking to the National Press Club, said:

Under Labor’s policy, there is no automatic arbitration of collective agreements. Our policy clearly states that no one will be forced to sign up to an agreement when they did not agree to the terms.

The policy explicitly said:

Good faith bargaining does not require bargaining participants to make concessions or to sign up to an agreement where they do not agree to the terms.

Yet what we find in the bill is the ability of Fair Work Australia to compulsorily arbitrate differences between parties when they cannot reach agreement themselves. Of course, they do not call it compulsory arbitration—it is called ‘workplace determinations’, but it is exactly compulsory arbitration by any other name. If parties who are negotiating an agreement cannot agree on terms that are suitable to them both, then they can walk away and they can rely on the safety net of awards and the National Employment Standards, which is a comprehensive safety net.

If you are negotiating to agree then that should mean exactly that. It should mean that parties can search for common ground and find areas in which agreement can be reached. This bill provides that, where agreement cannot be reached, those parties can be forced to make an agreement by Fair Work Australia.

Negotiating an agreement is about trying to find areas on which you can agree. If you are going to be forced to make that agreement then that is not bargaining at all. That is compulsory arbitration. There is a very strong safety net of awards and of National Employment Standards in this country, and that would be an appropriate basis for employees to go back to if an agreement cannot be reached. We propose to strip out these provisions in the bill and to hold Labor to account for the promises that they made to the Australian people prior to the last election.

Perhaps some of the worst job-destroying aspects of this bill are things that Labor refused to mention in their policy but that then turned up in their legislation. On greenfields agreements, which are the agreements that an employer can make when they are starting out a new site—such as a new mine site, for instance—Labor did not make one mention in their policy of the onerous, restrictive and complex greenfields agreements provisions that have found their way into the bill. These new provisions make it virtually impossible for new projects to commence without the approval of union officials. Often such greenfields agreements are made in circumstances where time is critical. This bill requires that the maker of one of those agreements needs to notify all possible unions who may cover the members at any particular site. This might be 10 or 12 unions, depending on what the actual site is.

So if the union choose to negotiate with the employer, once they have been notified, they must be recognised and an agreement must be reached before a project can go ahead. Basically, what the government is saying is that, if agreement cannot be reached, any of those union officials can hold up a new project from starting. This knowledge could of course be exploited to extract conditions that would not normally be offered or bargained in more neutral circumstances.

This is a blatant free kick for unions. No business will be able to start up unless unions give the green light for them to go ahead. That means that in my home state union officials such as Joe McDonald or Kevin Reynolds will have the power over new projects starting up. Why would we give such power regarding when a business can start to these officials? The coalition propose that the existing provision that requires unions to be notified be removed. Labor never took that to the people prior to the last election, and, again, we will be holding them to account for the promises they made.

I now move to the transmission of business provisions, because they have been radically altered in the bill. Again, Labor made no mention of these in their policy platform prior to the last election. The bill proposes a totally new approach to the transmission of business with a new concept called ‘transfer of work’. There is now a requirement in the bill that if employees are transferred in a business then the instrument that underpins them is ongoing; it is in perpetuity. It cannot be changed. That means if a business has uneconomic industrial arrangements, which is not competitive, and if those arrangements have contributed to that business failing then the new owner of that business cannot change those arrangements. What they will of course do, and what they have been given an incentive to do, is sack the existing workforce. Why, in this economic climate, would we have provisions that give someone the incentive to sack the existing workforce if there is a transfer of a business? The only way that an employer could avoid taking on this instrument is to get rid of the workforce. This provision is bad for industry and it is bad for the people who are employed in industry. The existing act strikes the right balance in this regard. It states:

If employees are transferred then the existing arrangements would only be operative for the following 12 months.

Within that time the new owner could reach agreement with the employees and, after 12 months, that agreement would cease to apply. If an agreement could not be reached then those employees would revert to the safety net. These changes to the transfer of business provisions are anti jobs and they discourage a new business owner from keeping existing employees or transferring them to their new entity. The coalition propose to keep the existing law. It is a law that has worked well and it is a law that allows Australians to keep their jobs when a business is transferred.

In the short time available to me I want to refer to the unfair dismissal laws. Every Australian working in small business knows and understands that these unfair dismissal laws stop small business employing more people. The Labor Party do not understand it, and how could they because none of them have ever worked in a small business? They do not understand the pressures that small business is under.

We will change the Fair Work Bill to ensure that small business still has incentives to employ more and more Australians. Why does the minister for employment bother to keep that particular title? She has lots of other titles; she is the Deputy Prime Minister. Why bother keeping the title of minister for employment when she continues to preside over a system with catastrophic consequences for Australians who are currently in work. (Time expired)

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the comments made by the member for Stirling on this matter of public importance. He may be the member for Stirling, but the contribution he made was certainly not a sterling effort. Throughout the 15 minutes allocated to him, the member for Stirling, the shadow minister for employment, supposedly responsible for employment, did not go to what the opposition would do to assist Australian workers who may lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Stirling was heard in silence.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For 15 minutes we heard a rationalisation by the opposition as to why they support Work Choices and why they will continue to do so. But what we need to know, when the Senate deliberates and decides, is where the opposition will be on this very important area of public policy. Whilst the member for Stirling went through all of the industrial relations ideas—few though they are—of the opposition, he made no mention of what the opposition would do to assist in providing opportunities for workers to keep jobs and indeed to find jobs.

Before I go through all of the initiatives of the government in response to the global financial crisis, can I just take issue with the comments made by the shadow minister in relation to the unfair dismissal laws. On 13 December last year, the Leader of the Opposition said:

… I believe—as would most economists—that unfair dismissal laws add to the cost of employing people—

We disagree with that, but that was his view. But he went on to say:

… nonetheless Labor took a proposal to change the unfair dismissal laws to the election and won …

And further:

So we must respect that.

The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying he must respect the mandate of the Australian people provided to this government to rid this country of Work Choices and to provide fair and balanced laws in the area of industrial relations. He made that commitment. We will now see whether in fact he will be rolled by the member for Higgins and others in the party who are acolytes and who will never be anything other than supporters of Work Choices.

I will just go to those things that have been attended to by this government since the start of the global financial crisis. As soon as the effects of the global financial crisis were known to this government, we responded. Firstly, we secured depositors’ money throughout the country and therefore we ensured there was confidence in the financial system. That was the first act taken by this government. That was quickly followed by the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy that would not only provide payments to people who were in need but also provide the requisite economic stimulus to the economy that would support jobs and provide opportunities for Australian workers. That occurred last year. What has happened since then? We announced the $6.4 billion car plan, providing support for a very important part of the manufacturing sector in this country. That was followed only recently by the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. That will support the construction and maintenance of more than 9,500 schools across this country. It was opposed by those opposite.

Every one of the members of the opposition voted against support for students, support for farmers, support for workers and support for the unemployed who are undergoing training. That is a shameful act and, indeed, they should hang their heads in shame. The opposition needs to stop being a rabble, stop being self-absorbed and stop being reckless and irresponsible when it comes to the Australian economy. I need to tell the opposition today that real leadership does not mean having two leaders; it means having a position and sticking to that position. It means working with the government in assisting us to provide opportunities for Australian workers and opportunities for business in order to get ourselves out of this crisis. We know that there are effects that will unfortunately be inflicted upon many Australians. We have been up-front from the beginning and said that there will be a rise in unemployment as a result of these effects. The Prime Minister has likened it to a cyclone. We have said that we will do everything we possibly can to cushion the blow of this particular economic recession.

As we know, this is the largest global economic recession since the Great Depression, so we need to do those things. We have actually been making decisions. What have those opposite done? They voted against every initiative taken to support Australian workers, Australian farmers and, indeed, others in our community. Recently, on 24 February, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I announced support for retrenched workers. We know there are going to be job losses. One job loss is one too many, but we need to make sure we put in place services that support those people in their hour of need. So we announced a $298.5 million package to provide personalised and intensive assistance to those retrenched workers and their families in order to ensure they are provided with assistance as early as possible and they can get themselves back into the workforce.

That particular initiative was very much welcomed by employer bodies and others in the community. In response to that particular initiative, the Business Council of Australia said:

Business Council of Australia … welcomes the announcement by the federal government of immediate assistance for workers facing unemployment as a result of the global economic downturn.

…                …                   …

The longer a person stays out of work, the more difficult the task of returning to employment can become.

Australia’s very important employment body, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also supported the initiative. They said that the announcement would:

… help the new unemployed bounce back into the job market.

So they supported our position in relation to retrenched workers. The Australian Industry Group also supported the announcement. They said:

Ai Group strongly endorses the decision to provide immediate employment services to retrenched workers …

AiG also said:

The sooner retrenched workers are re-engaged with the workforce or given training appropriate to their circumstances the better it is for both the individual concerned and the economy as a whole.

The peak employment service provider also supported the initiative by the federal government to help retrenched workers in this very difficult time. What has the opposition done? They voted against these initiatives; they do not support the initiatives we are giving to retrenched workers. They should hang their heads in shame. It is an outrageous approach by those opposite. But should we expect any different? The last thing we will ever do is to listen to the member for Stirling and others give us a lecture on how to help workers. The architects and the advocates of Work Choices want to lecture us on how we should help workers in this country. The last people we will ever listen to are the opposition trying to provide advice about how to help workers. What we know from this MPI today is that the opposition is seeking to find its way, to reposition itself, to be able to say: ‘Because of this or that circumstance, we might have to reconsider our position on Work Choices.’

They might say that they will get rid of the name, but the elements that they are concerned about in the government’s bill are the main elements that have always been the substance of Work Choices. They are going to—by whatever means—find a way to bring back the most extreme legislation that has inflicted itself on workers across this country. I also think that the member for Stirling has a hide to say that we did not consult the Australian people. Before the 2004 election, the then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard, did not make mention of one element of Work Choices. What happened after the 2004 election? After the 2004 election, they inflicted the most extreme laws of industrial relations. They rammed it through the House of Representatives and down the throats of men and women of Australia who work in businesses across the land. That is what happened, so the last thing we need is a lecture from the member for Stirling on consulting with the Australian people.

Conversely, we consulted widely prior to the last election; we informed people what we were to do. We have a mandate from the Australian people, and the opposition had better start thinking about recognising this and respecting this. In December, the Leader of the Opposition said that he respected that. He said that he respected the fact that we won the election. He said that he respected that unfair dismissal laws were part of our commitments. I assume from that—if he respects the fact that we won the election—that they will be supporting the Fair Work Bill. That is what we would hope, but it seems to me that the member for Higgins has clearly got more influence inside the opposition’s party room than the Leader of the Opposition.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Keenan interjecting

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are more obsessed by the member for Higgins than I am, Member for Stirling! I think it is quite interesting that the member for Higgins has more influence over the outcomes of the Liberal Party than the Leader of the Opposition. That is the reality. We know that the opposition is a rabble at the moment. We have not seen such a rabble for such a long time.

As I said before, what the opposition have to understand is that real leadership is not having two leaders. The fact is that they have to start thinking about the policies, they have to start thinking about what mandate this government has in the area of industrial relations and they also have to start respecting that the government is taking action swiftly to ensure that it protects Australian workers. We know they wanted to blame the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She got sacked. They brought back the member for North Sydney as shadow Treasurer. They had sacked the first minister for Work Choices and brought the member for North Sydney into that role. The fact is that Hockey might be the jockey but it is still the same old horse. The opposition are a rabble. They do not have one position on anything. The member for Stirling spent 15 minutes reading an essay to the parliament, and in everything he said in relation to employment there was not one mention of what the opposition would do to help Australian workers.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you mention jobs?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mayo might not get a chance to mention anything shortly.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have done is move quickly to support our financial system. We introduced the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy. We announced the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which was opposed by every member opposite. We have also initiated a $6.2 billion plan to help the car industry, a very important initiative. What have the opposition got as an alternative? They have no alternative. They have no plan, they have no idea, and the only jobs they talk about are those jobs inside the party room.

The member for Casey was once in this portfolio but he took a position that was not one that the now Leader of the Opposition supported, so he was pushed down the rungs. He might come back, because we know who his best friend is; we know whose apprentice he is. What the member for Casey wants is for the member for Higgins to come back so that he can get his old job as shadow minister for employment. I suggest to the member for Stirling that he should hope that the member for Higgins does not come back, because there is no doubt that the member for Casey would take the member for Stirling’s job.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Keenan interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Stirling was heard in silence.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was almost falling asleep when the member for Stirling was speaking. That is the only reason that he was heard in silence.

These are very serious issues and it is quite concerning that every time unemployment rises in this country the opposition relish it. Every time we see another worker lose their job, the opposition seem to be happy about it. There is nothing more galling than seeing the opposition happy to see Australian workers out of jobs. But you know what? We do not expect anything different, because they are the advocates for and architects of Work Choices and they will always be the advocates for and architects of Work Choices.

They need to start to come up with some concrete proposals to help Australian workers, to help Australian business and to help this economy. Instead, all we see is a self-absorbed opposition with two leaders, no resolution on policy, no resolution on leadership and no resolution on helping jobs and helping Australians who are doing it tough in very difficult economic circumstances. I ask members opposite to start doing their job as an opposition. (Time expired)

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the minister limped over the line there. I notice that the members opposite are leaving. They are all for jobs, all for talking about how they are going to get people sacked in restaurants up and down the Central Coast. They are the jobs that they like to talk about. But the jobs I want to talk about are the jobs being lost in this country under this government. In particular, I want to talk about the fact that the government think the job is done when they have made an announcement. Whether it is promises of funding, promises on housing or promises, most importantly, on jobs, Labor think the job is done when the announcement is made.

Last November I was in the Great Hall with some 500 mayors and the Prime Minister stood in front of those local government mayors and he waved $300 million around. He waved it around in front of their faces and demanded that they go—just like he demanded that the people of Australia went out with the cash splash they got before Christmas—and spend, spend, spend. If there was any doubt about when they should start, the Prime Minister dispelled it when he said:

By immediate, I mean immediate. It means now. It is ready to go now.

Coalition probing by Senator Payne in Senate estimates revealed the following. Within three months of that announcement, how many funding agreements had been signed? How many cheques had been sent to these more than 500 mayors? A hundred? No. Fifty? No. One funding agreement had been signed in three months. But we have had an absolute torrent of media statements, with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government parading around the country saying, ‘We’re giving money here and we’re giving money there.’ But they forgot to send the cheque.

The problem the government have with this—and it is outlined by councillors to me every day—is that they have chosen to adopt the most bureaucratic process possible to spend this money. They said they were going to do it according to the financial assistance grants, where an allocation is made and the cheque is sent. They do it every year. But on this occasion they said, ‘No, this is the allocation.’ The cheques should have been on the mayors’ desks on the Monday when they got back after they were promised them the previous week but, no, they said, ‘You can spend it in this way and you have all got to send your applications here to Canberra, because the bureaucrats here in Canberra and the minister know better than every single mayor in this country where this money should be spent.’ So what we saw was delay, bureaucratic delay.

The Australian Council of Local Government made suggestions. They said: ‘Look, just tell us how to spend it. We are governments. We are not small organisations; we are governments and we are accountable for our money. It needs to be transparent and we will spend it properly.’ But no, the government did not trust them. They said, ‘No, you have got to spend it all in here and we will change the guidelines about two or three times, and when we are finished with that maybe we will send you a funding agreement.’ This money is supposed to be spent by 30 September and it has all got to be out the door by 30 June. They have spent more than three months in a bureaucratic process which is crippling a stimulus that was supposed to happen. That stimulus is not happening under this program because they simply cannot get their act together when they make an announcement about jobs. The jobs simply do not come. So the question to the Prime Minister is: if ‘now’ means now for jobs, when does ‘now’ mean now, given we are still waiting after three months?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to have the last 40 seconds or so in this debate. We welcome a debate on economic management on this side of the House because, frankly, the record of those opposite was one of living high on the hog in the good times with no investment for the future. It was the good fortune of the longest-serving but laziest Treasurer in the Federation’s history to preside over an economy made strong and competitive by the hard work of the Hawke and Keating government and to have the good luck to be in the right place at the right time, when China and India were—

Debate interrupted.