Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue my remarks on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013. There is an element of commonality that links this bill to most bills that are brought before this House by this government. The commonality is that it is a bill that introduces a new tax, or it is a bill that looks to increase the size of the bureaucracy, or it is a bill that gives more power to the government's union mates. This bill seeks to give more power to the union mates to whom this government is beholden. It is a shame.

The coalition was disappointed to discover that this bill had been granted an exemption from the requirement for a regulatory impact statement. When questioned, departmental officials at a Senate committee hearing could not provide a substantive reason for the exemption. So we have one rule for Australians and another rule for union bosses. Given that this bill will affect every employer and every employee in Australia, the coalition believes that these changes would have benefitted from a regulatory impact statement so that both the community and the parliament could have detailed understandings of what the bill entails and the expected real-world impacts it contains.

As an aside, the coalition notes that, courtesy of this exemption, a further postimplementation review of the Fair Work Act will need to be conducted within the next couple of years. But this bill has been rushed and lacks clarity. The rushed nature of the bill could explain the concerns about the distinct lack of clarity that were identified in a number of submissions to the Senate committee. For instance, the vast majority of submissions from employee and employer groups, as well as interested parties, contained a number of suggested amendments largely related to the wording of the provisions. These groups were seeking greater clarity and in the amount of time they had to deal with it they could not get their head around some of the definitions that this bill sets out. It was disappointing that the government did not take time to consult widely and to ensure that the language contained in the bill was of a sufficient quality to ensure clarity. That is what business groups were asking for.

We have seen the Prime Minister—no other than the Prime Minister—on a number of occasions come to this House and, when it comes to issues of industrial relations, say, 'We have got the balance right.' Well, we are very apprehensive about the dramatic expansion of power for union bosses right across this bill. We note that the Prime Minister is taking great pride in the Fair Work Act—it is her baby—enacted in 2008. She claimed openly that she had got the balance right. Indeed, at her first press conference as Prime Minister she said, 'I have consulted hour after hour with business leaders, with union leaders, with small business leaders, to get the balance right.' The claim is that 'this is right'. I will now give evidence in this House to the contrary.

This is something that has been repeated and repeated, including as recently as 2012 when the Prime Minister said, 'We have built a modern and fair system that has got the balance right.' It was just the other day. The coalition notes that this bill will take the count for amendments to the Fair Work Act since 2009 to more than 400 pages. So if it was balanced then and there have been another 400 pages of amendments, that is no longer balanced. 'Hours and hours and hours of consultation with business—we had it right then'. Stick on another 400 pages of amendments and it is no longer balanced.

The coalition notes with some concern the figure circulated by the Australian Industry Group that there have been 157 new or extended union rights under the Fair Work Act. Why would anyone suggest after 400 pages of amendments and 157 new or extended union rights under the Fair Work Act that it is balanced? This government is doing nothing but returning the dues to the paymaster. This is a government that is totally beholden to the labour union movement. You need to look no further than the quality of the front bench when looking for someone who does not have linkages to the union movement. It is embarrassing—the gene pool that leads this nation. There are 100 days to go until the democracy of this nation will hopefully speak as to whether or not they believe that balance is in order, because I can assure you that 400 pages of amendments—157 new extended rights to union movement—is far from balanced.

The coalition again expresses deep concern that the vast bulk of this bill does not deal with the recommendations arising from the Fair Work review. We firmly believe that two recommendations of the Fair Work review should have been enacted as a part of this bill. For example, the High Court's unanimous judgement in the Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay case found that union bosses should not be an untouchable class in the workplace—something also recommended by the review panel.

The coalition welcomed the High Court decision and the Fair Work review panel's recommendations to this end. However, the coalition found that it was disappointing and emblematic of Labor through the then minister and current minister for industrial relations that he intervened in the High Court on the side of the union bosses, as a minister, as a member of the Crown. Mr Barclay argued that it was actually the intention of the Fair Work Act to make union bosses untouchable even if they did the wrong thing. How can that be? How can it be that anyone can advocate that they have the balance right when you have High Court judges advocating that it is unsettled?

Did you know that in Labor's intervention into the Barclay case they used more than $160,000 worth of taxpayers' funds? I would not say that was getting the balance right—using our money to argue for the union bosses against a taxpayer funded education institution. I would not say that that was about getting the balance right. Indeed, in a damning judgement, it has now been confirmed that the minister for workplace relations acted as an ex-union boss first and then a minister of the Crown second, after foolishly intervening on the side of the Australian Education Union in the Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay. This was the comment of the judge, Justice Heydon:

… the Minister's stance before and during the oral hearing was not that of an intervener, but that of a partisan. For example, some of the Minister's oral submissions were directed to factual material. This is hardly the province of an intervener.

This is the quality of the frontbench of this government that now through this bill has to pay its dues back to the union movement. That is why this bill is before the House; no other reason. That is why this bill is here, because they owe their political lifeblood to the union movement.

The coalition is disappointed that the government did not use the first or second tranches to enshrine this recommendation into legislation, which would ensure that union bosses are treated the same as all other employees in the workplace.

Within this bill there is also antibullying legislation. We have not got the balance right in this, because what parts of this schedule speak to is that the rules only apply to the workers. The rules apply to the bosses, but they do not apply to the union bosses. They are the weapons of choice for a union: bullying and intimidation.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What rubbish! What a slur!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will get your turn. Weapons of choice, I say. There are 100 days left to go. Here is another damning point: the provision in this bill relating to right of entry must be amended. This is a provision that must be excluded from this bill, because it is fundamentally flawed. This was a promise made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made a commitment at the National Press Club debate in 2007, straight after she—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read it to us.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Gillard said they would not be amending the right of entry. She said:

If you'd like me to pledge to resign, sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph, bet my house on it, give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you'd like.

And here it is in black and white in the bill before the House. This is a government that you cannot trust. This is a Prime Minister you cannot trust, because at every turn this is a government that is beholden to the union. This bill is all about paying the paymaster:

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.

They walked away from that commitment. The only way that they can honour their word is to have these parts of the bill excised. Those parts of the bill must come out if Labor are to be kept to their word. Based on these promises, it was right to accept that the existing rights-of-entry provisions would be maintained. However, as we know, this is just simply not the case.

There are parts and provisions in this bill which we will adamantly oppose. There are provisions in this act that are not good for our country. There are provisions in this act that at face value are deceitful. There are 100 days left, but the Prime Minister does not need another headline about going back on her word. We have had, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' We have had, 'We will deliver a surplus and continued surpluses after that.'

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pink batts.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pink batts. The list of failures goes on. Amend this bill. If there are only 100 days left, amend this bill so that the right-of-entry provisions for employees are not impeded and so that we as a nation can get back to greater productivity.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 provides us with an opportunity to protect people's rights at work and to Abbott-proof the Fair Work Act in the event that there is a change in government in September—which, looking at the polls, looks very likely.

The Greens for many years have been staunch supporters of legislation that protects people's rights at work, gives them the opportunity to strike a better work-life balance and gives them some comfort that they are going to have a secure job. Part of the problem with the this bill is that it represents a missed opportunity. Instead of legislating early on in the life of this parliament to remove some of the last vestiges of Work Choices, we have a bill that, sadly, is being left until five minutes to midnight and that, unfortunately, looks like it is going to be amended by agreement between the government and the opposition to remove some important elements.

As many of us have been saying for some time, the Fair Work Act carries over a large number of the provisions of the provisions from Work Choices that people campaigned so strongly against. The provisions that allow workers and their unions to bargain and to organise, as respected in international law, find themselves, with the Fair Work Act, under almost identical form to that under Work Choices. Many people have been campaigning for a long time to have those provisions finally removed. One would have thought that after five years of the Labor government we would have seen some of those elements of the John Howard laws removed, but no, they remain, and it looks like they are going to remain after today.

But the Greens will try to improve this legislation. One respect in which it can be improved is by giving people better access to work-life balance. We have a situation in this country where one in four employees has no sick leave. That is an extraordinary situation. Of the OECD countries, Australia is second only to Spain when it comes to the use of a temporary workforce. Spain has a large rural workforce, so you can understand why they have so many seasonal labourers, but there is absolutely no reason for Australia to do that. As a result, we have increasing job insecurity and people working large numbers of jobs just to earn enough income. We also have people working extraordinarily long hours. Not only is it insecure work but also many people are working long hours. Half of the people in this country would rather work a different set of hours to those they are currently working, even taking into account the fact that it might mean that they will lose pay.

What can we do about that? We can do a number of things. We can amend this legislation to ensure that people have an enforceable right to request flexible working arrangements. Flexibility should work both ways. Over the last two or three decades we have seen a lot of flexibility from the employers' side, but it should be a two-way street. We are not arguing to go back to days when everything was regulated and there was a uniform standard, but we are saying that if we are serious about flexibility then it should work both ways. We will be seeking to amend the bill to ensure that if people, especially carers, ask for a better work-life balance, and if the employer unreasonably says no, then people are able to have the right of appeal and have it tested.

There will be many instances in which it is not appropriate to allow an employee to work a certain set of hours. You should not necessarily be able to, for example, clock off halfway through fighting a fire because you have external events. There will be some businesses which simply would not be able to afford to accommodate a particular employee's needs. There will be some businesses, especially small businesses, which would find it extremely difficult. However, there are many others for which it would be very easy with a bit of creativity to do that. At the moment, under the government's bill, you can ask and the employer just has to say no for that to be it. That is it; that is the end of the line. It could be the most unreasonable of all requests or it could have an enormous impact on you and the people that you are looking after, but the employer is able to say no. We will be proposing that the bill has some teeth in that respect and that the Fair Work Commission is able to balance the legitimate needs of employees with the legitimate needs of the businesses that employ them.

What we have also seen during the last few years of this government are some holes in the Fair Work Act. We have seen with the Qantas dispute, for example, the use of tactical industrial action by employers. We have seen Qantas realise that it was not going to be able to negotiate a satisfactory outcome and that some of the things the employees wanted—for example, clauses around job security—were not going to be able to be reached as an outcome. So what did it do? It fast-tracked arbitration by holding a gun to the nation's head. It grounded its airline fleet, and as a result we ended up in Fair Work Australia within a very short period and it got the arbitrated outcome it wanted, with nothing in it as far as job security was concerned.

We have also seen, in my home state of Victoria, an opposite tactic being employed with nurses, for example. The government says, 'We know that if we get to arbitration there will be some things where we will get a good deal and there will be some things that nurses are seeking that aren't even going to be delivered at the arbitral outcome—for example, nurse/patient ratios.' There are constitutional issues at the moment as to whether the Fair Work Commission has the power to arbitrate such things. The government knows this, so what does it do? It strings out the dispute, hoping that at some stage that nurses or the teachers will get so frustrated that they take industrial action—then you end up at Fair Work with only half the claim being arbitrated, and all the important issues, like minimum ratios, do not find their way into the decision.

It is possible to fix that. We have seen that these are flaws in the act, and it is possible to fix that by saying, 'No, you can't come here seeking orders to terminate industrial action unless you're going to settle the whole dispute.' It is possible to fix it by saying: 'You can't come here unless you have clean hands. If you have just grounded your whole fleet in an attempt to get an arbitrated outcome that you like then we're going to send you back to keep bargaining—you must come to the Fair Work Commission with clean hands.' We will be moving amendments to fix that.

One of the other missed opportunities in this bill is the ability to address the growing problem of job insecurity. As I said at the start, when one in four workers in this country does not have sick leave because they are on some form of casual arrangement, we have a problem. When in the higher education sector, for example, only about a third of the people are in ongoing employment—and we are not talking here about the lifetime tenure professor that people might think of; we are talking about simple ongoing employment—and the other two-thirds are on some form of rolling contracts or casual work, we have a problem.

In some businesses, of course, it is going to be appropriate to use casual labour or fixed-term labour—of course; no problem with that. But why is it that in our schools and in our universities, where we know there is going to be work from year to year, some people find themselves at the end of the year not knowing if they are going to have a job the next year for a 10-year cycle? Why should a university researcher or lecturer be waiting until October to find out whether they are going to have a job next year, when they know the university has secure funding for a number of years to come? Why is it that teachers are not able to apply for mortgages because they are on rolling contracts from year to year to year? Why is that workers around the country are unable to make decisions about starting a family or buying a house because their work is insecure? That should not be the case, and it should especially not be the case in those sectors that are reliant on government funding, like education. We will be moving amendments in an attempt to address some of those issues.

I would hope that, by the time that this legislation leaves this place, we have taken up the opportunity to right some of the wrongs that have been in our industrial laws for some time. I would very much hope that we do not have the situation where the government and the opposition work together to remove what are some good provisions of this bill. I fear that that may be the case—and a lot of people would have a quite legitimate right to be disappointed by that.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, but it is not my pleasure to follow the member for Melbourne—the Greens member for Melbourne—because he does not disclose his interests in this place; namely, that before the last election the Greens received $325,000 from the Victorian branch of the Electrical Trade Union, and $125,000 went to the member for Melbourne for his campaign there and $200,000 went to Senator Richard Di Natale.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a bill about industrial relations, about Fair Work Australia; it is not a bill about electoral disclosure or electoral funding.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will address the bill before the chair.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a relevant point, though, to mention the money that has been received by the Greens from the union movement. But I rise to speak on this bill, which is the latest example of the Labor Party pandering to the union movement. The Labor Party is not interested in productivity gains. The Labor Party is not interested in increasing employment. It is interested only in paying back its union master. But that should not be of any surprise to us, because, if you go to the Labor caucus, you find that 100 per cent of them are members of the union and, if you go to a Labor federal or state national conference, the unions automatically have 50 per cent of the votes. Why is that important here? It is important because the union movement is only 13 per cent of the private sector workforce of Australia and just under 20 per cent if you take into account the public sector.

So what we have seen under this government—and this Fair Work Amendment Bill is just another example of this—is increased union power right across the board. We have seen increased union power in right of entry. We have seen increased union power in greenfield sites. We have seen increased union power in the ability to strike first and talk later. We have seen increased union representation on the Fair Work Commission. This is no surprise, when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in this country is the former National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union. But do not take my word for it; take the word of Kathy Jackson. Kathy Jackson, the former head of the HSU, said that the member for Maribyrnong is 'Dracula in charge of the blood bank'. That is what she said about the minister for workplace relations.

We have seen many scandals involving unions. We saw the situation with the member for Dobell. We have seen the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission—a very positive institution set up by the previous Howard government that came out of the Cole royal commission. It was designed to stop lawlessness in the building sector. Across this country, particularly in Victoria and Western Australia, it was doing a very important job of providing a cop on the beat. But the Labor Party, together with the unions and the Greens, came into this place and abolished the ABCC. That was a very bad thing for Australian workplaces and for the Australian people.

This Fair Work Amendment Bill breaks another solemn promise of the Prime Minister to the Australian people. We have seen her broken promises on private health insurance. We have seen her broken promises on the family tax benefit. We have seen her broken promises on the carbon tax. And now we are seeing her broken promises on the Fair Work Act. The Prime Minister claimed that she 'consulted for hour after hour with business leaders, with union leaders, with small business leaders to get the balance right' and, 'We have built a modern and fair system that has got the balance right.' But they have not got the balance right. Again, you do not need to take the coalition's word for it; you need only look at what Innes Willox, the head of the Australian Industry Group, said in an interview on the ABC. He said that there are:

… about 160 different measures under the Fair Work Act mark one and two which are very clearly pro-union and we can't find one, not one, that is pro-employer under the Act.

That is a pretty amazing statement from the head of the Australian Industry Group. That is not a coalition MP speaking; that is the head of a major organisation in this country.

My concern about the bill before this House is that it has not followed proper process. There has not been a regulatory impact statement. In fact, when members of the department responsible came before the Senate committee they could not explain why there had been an exemption of this bill from getting a proper regulatory impact statement. Another thing that concerns me about this bill is that it does not include the recommendations that came forward from the government's own Fair Work review panel. The government hand-picked a number of people to provide a review which was supposed to lead to some significant changes to the Fair Work Act to make it more balanced and more productivity focused. What did they do? They have not taken up the recommendations.

One such recommendation was saying union bosses in the workplace should be treated as any other employee. That came out of the Bendigo TAFE case. Something very interesting also came out of the Bendigo TAFE case, and that is what a Justice of the High Court, Justice Heydon, said in the decision of the High Court about the Labor government's intervention by the minister responsible:

… the Minister's stance before and during the oral hearing has not been that of an intervener, but that of a partisan.

That is what we have from this government. We do not have from this government an independent, even hand in industrial relations. We have from this government interventions based on what is in the unions' interest. In this bill, again, we see many examples of that. For example, in this bill, the right-of-entry provisions are much more punitive and will not enhance productivity and jobs growth in our country and in our workplaces.

One of the amendments that the government would like to promote is that, where the employer and employees cannot agree on a meeting place, the default meeting place is in the lunch room. There are going to be many people sitting in their lunch rooms wanting to have their burger and fries and Coke in peace and quiet, but they are going to have union representatives come into their place, interrupt their lunch and try to sign them up. It is what you have done in terms of childcare workforces and the aged-care workforces where you have tried to boost the flagging membership of the union movement by making some payments to those sectors contingent upon increasing your membership. You are doing it again and it is outrageous. It is an abuse of power and it is an abuse of process. What about the fact that 87 per cent of the private sector workforce in this country have decided not to join a union, but they cannot eat their burger and chips in quiet? What do you say about that? In fact, this was not even a recommendation of the government's hand-picked Fair Work review panel. This is all about union membership.

What about the other recommendation that this government is seeking to implement through this legislation to make employers liable for the transport costs when unions want to use their right of entry in a remote location? You are asking the employer to pay for the union rep to try and recruit employees to join a union. How outrageous is that! Do not take my word for it; take the employers' word for it. For example, the Australian Mines and Metals Association has said that this could lead to an increase of some $30,000 in costs on some occasions, just because you want to recruit more members. Those costs will come straight off the bottom line of a company, and who will they be passed on to? They will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. By deciding to go and recruit members for your flagging unions, you have decided to pass on higher costs to the Australian consumers. I think this is absolutely outrageous, particularly when you consider that the Prime Minister had promised that she would not change the right-of-entry provisions. How about this quote from the National Press Club debate in November 2007. The Prime Minister of today said:

I'm happy to do whatever you would like. If you'd like me to pledge to resign, to sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph, bet my house on it, give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you like.

That is what she said when she promised not to change the right-of-entry provisions. Now we have seen those right-of-entry provisions, and they have opened the floodgates to the unions to interrupt the workplaces of hardworking Australians and their employers. The AWU made 156 site visits to BHP's Worsley aluminium site just in 2012. The Pluto site saw more than 200 visits from the union in just the first 90 days of the Fair Work Act. That is the evidence that there has been a graphic abuse of process by those opposite and their mates in the unions.

What about, in this legislation, your decision to legislate to create more flexible working arrangements? That is already occurring. We heard from the Fair Work Ombudsman and from the department that that is already happening, but you want to legislate for it. If you really want to legislate to increase flexibility in the workplace, why don't you extend the termination date for the individual flexibility agreements from 28 days to 90 days? That was recommended by your own hand-picked review. Why don't you do something about that?

The other change that you want to put forward in this bill is employers consulting with employees around roster changes. That is already standard practice. For those on the opposite side who do not understand modern-day awards, that is already in there. What you are on about here is opening the floodgates and making it impractical for employers to run a business, to employ people, to boost productivity and to replicate the successes of the Howard government.

What about bullying? When it comes to bullying, we take it very seriously. We take it extremely seriously, but we do not accept what you are providing for in this bill. There is nothing in this bill that says that if a union official is a bully then he should pay a price for it. We want to see an amendment that holds union officials to the same level of account. We also want employees to first seek help and advice from an independent regulatory agency, such as Safe Work Australia or the Fair Work Ombudsman. If they confirm that behaviour may constitute bullying and that alternative remedies have been considered then that must be done prior to the lodging with the commission. I have news for those on the other side: their hand-picked chair of the Fair Work review supported our policy on this.

When we were in government we had a suite of industrial relations policies which improved the Australian economy. We delivered a 22 per cent increase in real wages. We restored the AAA credit rating of this country. We paid back $96 billion of debt. On the waterfront, we doubled the speed and rate of the cranes being moved. We did all those things and we paid back all your debt that you are now burdening future generations with. But with your policies, your pandering to the union movement, your abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and your reregulation of the workplace, you are taking us backwards to before Paul Keating's reforms.

No wonder you are being hounded out of office, and every business leader from here to Timbuktu is criticising you for putting unions first and employers last. By doing that you are defeating the best interests of the employees. You are hurting productivity in this country. (Time expired.)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow my esteemed colleague.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not for me, it isn't.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield always has some contribution to the debate, but it is usually not very helpful. Today is a bit like Groundhog Day. Again we see this Labor government trying to rush another bill through this parliament. As a result, once again, there is concern about a lack of clarity that was identified in a number of submissions to the Senate committee. This bill has been rushed right past interest groups, including employee and employer groups that made a number of suggested amendments which focused heavily on improving the wording of provisions to provide greater clarity.

The bulk of this rushed bill does not even deal with the recommendations arising from the Fair Work review. But are we really surprised? Prior to today, this bill was geared to provide significant additional rights to union bosses. Furthermore, it glosses over many things that already occur in Australian workplaces, because at the end of the day employers and employees in the majority of cases work together for the best outcomes for both parties. However, seeing that the government has addressed the bulk of the coalition's concerns we are now in a position to support this bill.

Earlier this week, I spoke about a number of broken promises by this Labor government. We almost added another to that list, because the Prime Minister said there would be no changes to union right-of-entry laws. Since the Fair Work Act came into effect we have seen an onslaught of visits. These visits usually serve two purposes: either to hunt for potential members or to intimidate. Eighty-seven per cent of the Australian private sector workers who actively choose not to join a union will be constantly badgered by union bosses to sign up for membership. It was recently reported that the Australian Workers Union made 156 site visits to BHP's Worsley aluminium site in 2012 and 175 in 2011. The Pluto project experienced more than 200 union site visits in the first 90 days of the act. You can imagine where these numbers would have led to with even more power being given to unions before today's changes. Thankfully, the government has decided not to proceed with the right-of-entry provisions.

The bill still makes a number of amendments to the Fair Work Act, which include the modern awards objective. First, the bill inserts a new modern award objective to protect penalty rates. The Fair Work Commission will have to take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working overtime, unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours, or on weekends, public holidays or shifts. As a coalition we do not believe the parliament should be in the business of legislating the detail of each and every modern award, taking account of flexibility that may be required in a range of different sectors of employment.

Secondly, the bill seeks to extend the right to request flexible working arrangements to employees: for example, those with caring responsibilities, those who are parents or responsible for the care of school-aged children, those who might care for someone older or with a disability or those supporting immediate family members or household members. The bill also explicitly states that employees returning from parental leave have a right to request part-time work. Those issues in the bill are perfectly sensible.

However, most of it already happens in workplaces across this country and the need to actually legislate these provisions is an additional red-tape burden and regulation on the business community. The proposed legislation also inserts a new subsection 65(1A) that sets out a 'non-exhaustive' list for 'reasonable business grounds' to refuse these requests. This includes an excessive cost of accommodating the request; a lack of capacity to recognise other employees' work arrangements to accommodate the request; the impracticality of any arrangement that would need to be put in place to accommodate the request, including the need to recruit replacement staff, significant loss of efficiency or productivity; and a significant impact on customer service. What this essentially means is that the government is legislating something that already exists in workplaces right around the country—the ability to request flexible working arrangements from your boss.

The bill also talks about genuine consultation on changes to rosters and hours. The bill provides for insertion in awards and agreements of a new 'genuine consultation' requirement for changes to rosters or working hours. It will be mandatory for employers to consult on proposals to change hours or rosters that do not amount to 'major workplace change'. Employers must give the employees information about the change and invite the employees to air their views about the effect of the change. Again here we see for the first time the government attempting to legislate conditions around roster changes. Seriously, I would suggest that it is common practice that employees are consulted on changes to their rostering arrangements. If employers want to have good, productive relationships with their employees and in their workplaces, I would suggest that these changes are regularly discussed with the affected employees before any changes are made.

The bill extends from three weeks to eight weeks the concurrent unpaid parental leave that eligible members of an employee couple can take. The bill also goes on to extend to pregnant employees with less than 12 months service the right to be transferred to a safe job if they are fit for work but are unable to continue in their current position because of illness or risks to their pregnancy. If there is no safe job, employees who have longer than 12 months service will be entitled to unpaid leave. The bill will also provide that taking unpaid special maternity leave does not reduce the employee's entitlement to unpaid parental leave—restating, interestingly, the Work Choices position.

The bill also had a clause in relation to antibullying. The bill gives workers the right to seek rapid remedies through the Fair Work Commission if a worker is bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals and the conduct creates a health and safety risk. We take the issue of workplace bullying very seriously and are disappointed that the government did not see fit to deal with this issue in a separate bill to ensure the necessary and thorough oversight.

With this in mind we would at least like to see the following amendments included in the bill: insert a filter mechanism which will require claimants to approach an independent regulatory agency such as the Fair Work Ombudsman or Safe Work Australia confirming that the behaviour in question does or may constitute bullying and that alternative remedies have been considered prior to the claim lodged with the commission. This is something that has been supported by the government's hand-picked Fair Work reviewer, Professor Ron MacCallum. Also, specifically include all forms of bullying, including that conducted by union bosses.

There are also some minor technical amendments to the bill to correct the rushed first amendment bill. I would like to add here that it would be very helpful for everyone involved if the government took more care when drafting bills. I point to this particular amendment as a result of what happens when this government continually rushes bills through this parliament for political purposes, without the appropriate time for consideration. Two or three days is not an appropriate amount of time to consider such matters. To say that this government has form in this regard would be an understatement. We only need to look at the past few days with the education bill and the budget bills. There is a whole long list of bills where this is exactly the case. We constantly come back to this place seeing amendments and changes made to correct drafting errors or bits they have missed out. It is an incredibly inefficient way to govern this country and gives nobody certainty or consistency.

There is a better way. The coalition has recently released our policy to improve the Fair Work laws. Our policy will improve the prospects of real higher wages for Australian workers, lift standards of behaviour in trade unions, make it easier for small business to employ people and lift Australia's productive capacity. All Australians want harmonious, productive and smart workplaces where effort is rewarded, loyalty is encouraged and where businesses and their employees share in the success of that enterprise. We want to see the take-home wages of Australian workers increase, just as they did under the coalition government from 1997 to 2007. Average real wages grew by 21.5 per cent.

Under our policy, no Australian worker will be worse off and business will be encouraged to grow. The real priority for our real solutions plan is to build a stronger, more productive and diverse economy that delivers more jobs, higher wages and better services for all Australians. That is why we can say with certainty that no Australian worker or business will go backwards because of this policy. This policy will, however, make life more difficult for militant building unions and dishonest union officials who continue to abuse their position. We make no apology for that. Australians have seen enough from the excesses of the Health Services Union and allegations surrounding the AWU to know something is very wrong with the standards and culture of some important national unions. We know that those who profit from such abuses will fight against these common-sense changes.

Our policy seeks to improve the current Fair Work laws by providing common-sense solutions to practical problems such as ensuring that right-of-entry provisions are sensible and not abused, providing practical help to small businesses within the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman and tackling lawlessness on building sites and construction projects by re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These sensible and common-sense measures will address the flexibility, militancy and productivity problems that exist within the operation of the current system. Our changes are about helping our workplace relations system work better for all concerned.

Unlike Labor, who say one thing before an election and do another thing after it, we will keep our word. We will not deliver less than our policy and we will go no further. If elected, these are the only changes that an incoming coalition government will make in a first term. The centrepiece of our economic agenda is to create one million new jobs within five years and two million jobs within 10 years. We will achieve this aim through dynamic, harmonious and productive workplaces where employers and employees share the benefits of growth. It is through our commitment to deliver stronger workplaces, lower taxes and more efficient government that the next coalition government will deliver a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to rise to speak on this, another one of the Fair Work amendment bills that this government has rushed into the parliament.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope you do better, Jamie.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Wakefield!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might need a fair bit of it during this contribution. It is a terrific opportunity to speak on this very important bill, and I say 'very important' because in the bill's original iteration it explained to the House and to the Australian public just where this government is at. This is a government leading into an election where they have obviously got some challenges. It seems that through this bill in this parliament, talking directly to the bill, they are trying to provide some circumstances to protect some of their friends into the future by ensuring that the unions have protections for future operations. It is all part of the same entity. Labor members opposite largely, proudly—and I will say that for the member for Wakefield—have a long service in the union movement. I am not sure about the Assistant Treasurer. I think the Assistant Treasurer was a tax lawyer at Mallesons. I am not sure there was a union involvement anywhere. It was not Mallesons. I correct the record. But I do not think he has a union background. We may need to check this and he can correct me if I am wrong.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am a unionist.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A union member, right. There we are.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a crime.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one says it is a crime. In fact, it is legal to be a member of a union in Australia.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will fix that.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mayo will be heard in silence.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I predicted, I thought I might need a bit of it.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's union thugs!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right, an example of union thugs.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is not helping, and the member for Wakefield will sit there in complete silence.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be terrific, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was present during the member for Wakefield's contribution on this bill earlier in the week and I guess it gets back to the old saying that what goes around comes around. The point I was making is that I think the latest statistic we have is that about 90 per cent of those in the Labor caucus are former union bosses of some description. It is something that many of them are very proud of. The member for Wakefield is first among equals there.

Go to the Labor Party website and have a look at the backgrounds of the MPs and the candidates who are running, obviously, as hard as they can at the moment in most seats—it is true that Labor has not preselected in all its seats at the moment; I am not sure why that is. What really surprises me is that if you try to discover where they worked prior to entering parliament—the member for Wakefield, for instance—you will find that that is very difficult to establish. It is a fascinating thing that, for people who are so proud of the fact that they are former union bosses—I think it is 90 per cent of them—it is very difficult to establish from the profiles on the Labor Party website that that was their career. I often ask myself: why would that be, with such pride in their contributions to their union over time? I acknowledge that the member for Wakefield did good things; he helped Bridgestone workers. I know that one of his proud achievements is that, when Bridgestone closed factories in Adelaide, he was there helping those workers out. I acknowledge that the union movement has done great work for people over the decades where necessary. My great-grandfather was the longest serving secretary of the Miscellaneous Workers Union in Victoria during the 1960s. That is a fact that some people find surprising. It is a fact that a former employer of mine found a little odd.

I acknowledge that some trade union members have done great work. So it does surprise me, and it perplexes me, to be honest, that despite such pride in being a union boss—or a union lawyer, as we know the Prime Minister was—that fact is not up in lights on the websites of these Labor members and candidates. I cannot figure out what the reason for that might be. Maybe it is that the Labor Party is increasingly ashamed of the fact that it has to stand by members of parliament who used to be presidents, for instance, of a once great union; stand by members of parliament on behalf of their once great party who have misused thousands—allegedly millions—of dollars of funds, who have misused the contributions of hardworking people who push trolleys up hospital corridors. I know there are those on the other side who, if that has been the case, find it completely abhorrent, want it to be sorted out and want people to be prosecuted appropriately. It is right for them to think that, because there is a black cloud hanging over the trade union movement in the country right now. It is sad, because many thousands of workers join unions for a good purpose: to receive advice and services as they require, particularly at the lower level of the wage bracket. It is a sad thing that those union members are now saying to themselves, 'Why was it that I contributed that money that was then used for things such as the alleged procurement of adult services?' That is something I think is a real shame for the Labor Party. I wonder if there is a correlation between that and the fact that I cannot find any link on any website that says that 90 per cent of them are former union bosses.

When I was here, I think it was on Tuesday, listening to the member for Wakefield make his contribution to the debate on this bill, I heard him start by talking about the pride he has in Australia having the highest minimum wage in the world.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says, 'Indeed!' I acknowledge that. One of the great achievements of the Howard government was being the first government in the history of the Commonwealth to put the minimum wage in legislation. I see that the member for Wakefield is nodding his head. He acknowledges that that was the case. John Howard put the minimum wage in legislation for the first time in the history of our country. Member for Wakefield: we support the minimum wage. You can see our commitment to it, because we put it in legislation at that time. Do you know what, Member for Wakefield? The Labor Party opposed the bill. It opposed the putting of the minimum wage into legislation.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the bill called?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the workplace relations reform bill, Member for Wakefield. It put in place the minimum wage in Commonwealth law for the first time. The member for Wakefield was going on about how this was an important thing in his contribution on this bill. The point that the member for Wakefield does not make is that with industrial relations in this country, as across the globe, there is balance. There is a balance between those on the inside of the employment market, the employed, and those on the outside of the employment market—this category is growing—called the unemployed.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you deal with 457 visas?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will get to that. It is interesting you raise that point. The problem with the Labor Party on this subject is they are like kids in a candy shop. They have got their instructions from their industrial arm. Let us work through the SDA example just because the member for Wakefield is here.

It depends which union you work for, but the process is you start off as a union organiser, commonly known as the 'shoppies', and Don gives you the approval to go up to the next step. And then you go, 'I am not sure all the union bosses in this place did start off as workers,' and that may be one of the issues. You then end up getting in the right faction and, depending on the power of your faction, you get placed into a parliament. Some get placed into the upper house in the state parliament of South Australia—we remember those sorts of people; some get placed into safe seats in a state parliament; and some get placed into what were formerly safe seats in the federal parliament. Occasionally they turn them into marginal seats and occasionally do it the other way, which is less usual. That is generally the process, so there are a lot of former union bosses on that side, as I have established already in this contribution.

What unions and, therefore, their political arm, the Labor Party, do not ever argue for when it comes to workplace relations is a balance that encourages those who are not in the employment club to take the opportunity to join that employment club. That is where our policy is in contrast to theirs. This Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 is focused on union power and on protecting those in the system, the people with a job who are members of a union. But, the more regulation there is of people's workplaces, the harder it is for employers and employees to be able to create more opportunities for more people, and that is where we are focused.

The difference between us and the Labor Party on this subject is stark. The Labor Party legislate for unions. They legislate for the worst circumstance. They presume all bosses are evil and that all bosses will seek at some point in time to do damage or inflict some pain on their workforce rather than trusting that, instinctively, employers want to get on and do well and small-business people want to get on and do well.

Let us take a scenario. Let us say I own a pie shop. I have a couple of employees and the pie shop is going well, putting aside a couple of customers who occasionally get—

Mr Champion interjecting—

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield is not helping.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

he is a serial offender—putting aside a couple of customers occasionally who may try and bully the owner of the pie shop—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who would do that?

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been reports that pie shop workers are not safe. There will be no pie shop workers safe under a government I lead—or an opposition I lead, as the case may be!

Mr Champion interjecting—

I am not the one that went to the Fin Review and started talking about it. I digress because I am being encouraged to digress by the member for Wakefield. Let us go back to the scenario of owning a pie shop. I own a pie shop; I have a couple of employees; and I have some difficult customers from time to time—in the event that the pie is cold, for instance, and the customer is not happy and expresses his concern. What I want in that circumstance is to be able to grow my pie shop—grow the pie, so to speak, and make the pie bigger and maybe hotter.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a big pie for all.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is more pie for all, more satisfied customers, less bullying of pie shop workers. Let us have that. Let us make that a policy. No bullying of pie shop workers under a government Tony Abbott leads. How does that sound? That will be a policy we will pursue with vigour. What we want is a scenario where the industrial relations laws trust the pie shop owner and the pie shop workers that they want to get on; open at the times their customers want them open; and work together to create more opportunity to make that business as prosperous as it can possibly be—putting aside angry complaints about cold pies.

That is the pursuit that this side of the House wants and it is the desire of the Australian public and the desire of the industrial relations system—an industrial relations system which returns itself to the sensible centre if there is a change of government in approximately 99 days and 18 hours. We think that what the government is doing here is rewarding its mates—it did this in the budget by giving them money to get back through donations in an election campaign. This is more law, and we acknowledge that there have been some amendments because the bill was so flawed when it came to the parliament that even that quasi-Labor member, the member for New England, stood against it. They have changed and accepted some amendments.

We think this is a bad direction, and we have said that for some time. Australia has a productivity problem and we have to improve our productivity performance. We have a competitiveness problem increasingly against our international competitors. We live in a globalised society and world. There are many who would like to whip up a scare campaign in the community about that. We have to compete. We have to be as lean and mean and hungry as we can to compete, especially small business.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chinese wages. That would help.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will play every campaign trick he can and he will have the member for Wakefield who is trying to conjure up his inner Calwell. This is another bad Labor bill delivered by a government that is in chaos and dysfunction on a daily basis. We think it is a government that in 99 days the Australian people should ditch.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The wonderful thing about my position is that when I stand up to speak on industrial matters I was a member of the only government that has ever stood up to a union seriously when they were right over the fence. It was arguably one of the more brutal confrontations in recent Australian history. I have never resiled from the fact that I was a key player. The lights were turned off in major parts of Brisbane for over two weeks. That was the confrontation and from that point forward there was a backdown on excessive behaviour. There has been a backdown to a point now where unions in a lot of cases have become supine and, I might even say, in some cases grovelling. It is more important for them to achieve site coverage than it is for them to represent their workers. In those days one had to stand one's ground against excessive demands from the trade unions, but now I find myself, holding the same moderate position that I think I held then, having to go in the other direction.

The previous speaker said we were non-competitive. Of course, we are—you want a free trade deal with China. There is only one way to be competitive and that is to go down to Chinese wages. I do not doubt for a moment that the heartland of Liberal philosophy would have us go down to Chinese wages. I heard one of the biggest disasters in Australian history, Mr Paul Keating, tell us that we were going to move in a free and open economic society—that Australia would be the freest economy on earth—and he most certainly delivered on that promise. When I heard him say that, I asked myself: 'Is this person mad? Are we going to pay Chinese wages in Australia?' If you are going to have a free trade deal with China, you can close everything down in this country. Although I must admit I have not heard it recently, people in this House sometimes say we are going to be the food bowl of Asia. Those of us who come out of agricultural areas laugh. It is probably preferable that we laugh than cry. We will be net importers of food from Asia.

Let me be very specific. I have said this before in the House: if you draw a graph of the production of prawn and fish farming in China, it is almost a vertical graph. If you extrapolate on for 40 or 50 years, all of the world's protein will come from China. I cannot mention his name without his permission, but one of the biggest food wholesalers in Australia is about to get bumblebees, and I said, 'What do you need bumblebees for?' He said, 'Because you've got to stop the tomatoes coming in from China.' I do not want to go sideways on that issue again—I spoke about it before—but tomatoes will be coming in from China. The Tasmanians have told me that there are more apples and apple products coming in from China than we produce in Australia. Just wake up to yourselves, you stupid people. Your country, in three years time, will be a net importer of food thanks to the free market policies of the government and of the Liberal Party and their running dogs, as they used to be called, the National Party—the rubber stamps that come in here called the National Party.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Try to be relevant once, Bob.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I cannot think of one time that the National Party has taken a stand and confronted the Liberal Party in my 20 years here. Maybe there is an instance and my memory is playing tricks upon me, but I cannot remember what it was. But I do remember—unfortunately, for people like you who have been in here two minutes—the great Doug Anthony when he stood up and said, 'You will bring down the dollar or I will bring down the government.' That was a party which we will remember.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: we are debating the Fair Work Amendment Bill, and the member for Kennedy has not yet addressed the topic.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy is being rather wide ranging in his comments, and I do ask him if he could restrict his comments to the bill.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the contribution, because I do want to get on to the bill. So I thank the interjector. But I was enjoying myself so much that I got sidetracked.

I was brought up as a little kid. You can read about it in my book, as I always say—$36 at every good bookstore and a moderate bestseller, I am forced to add out of humility. As a little kid I was brought up in the Labor tradition. We were not labourers or employees. In fact, on my father's side we were always wealthy and, some of our critics would say, powerful people for many generations in Australia. I will not deny that or resile from that. But when one in 31 of the people in Charters Towers went down the mine and never came back up again, and one in 31 of those that went down the mines in Bendigo and Ballarat or the mines in New South Wales and Western Australia never came back up again, my great-grandad thought it was his duty as a decent citizen and a patriotic Australian to stop that from happening. To stop that from happening, we had to form the Labor Party. There was no alternative to that, and I very proudly recall—it is in all the history books—that my great-grandad gave 3,000 pounds, which is nearly $1 million in today's money, to the strike fund in 1894. What we won at the turn of the last century was the right to arbitration. When we went on strike and tried to get decent pay, we were smashed to pieces. We were shot dead; there were three people shot dead at Dagworth Station over our fight to secure arbitration. Two weeks after that shoot-out at Dagworth Station—

Mr Chester interjecting—

Mr Deputy Speaker, I find it a little bit difficult, because the person at the front bench here is talking continuously, and fairly loudly as well. So could you shut him up, please?

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think they have paid some note to the member for Kennedy.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They introduced a concept called arbitration. As the previous leader of the Labor Party recalled, the first head of the arbitration court said that, when there is a contract of one, there is no contract. That is a profound concept. So we got arbitration and, funnily enough, from an enlightened Tory. The first arbitration in Australia came through George Reid as Premier of New South Wales. He introduced arbitration as law so that by right a worker had the right to arbitration if he wanted a fair go; he did not have to go on strike and go hungry, be shot dead, in some cases, or be thrown in jail for three years hard labour, as the entire executive of the AWU was in Queensland. He did not have to do those things. He could go in a civilised manner to an arbitration court and put his case. The employer could also go in a civilised manner to arbitration and put his case. We were a civilised society.

An incident that occurred last night in a Rugby League game indicated a not very pleasant side of not having a referee. The Liberal Party abolished arbitration in this country, so now we are playing football without a referee. That suited them because they represent the more powerful party, the powerful corporations, who are almost all foreign corporations. The Liberal Party represent the foreign corporations that own this country. All of our mining companies, all of our dairy factories, all of our sugar mills are foreign owned. Almost all of our factories—not that we have got many left—are foreign owned. So, representing their masters, the corporations, they abolished arbitration. We people of Australia might be dumb but we ain't that dumb, and a very good man lost his seat in parliament. Only twice in Australian history has a Prime Minister lost his seat in parliament, and on both occasions that Prime Minister abolished the arbitration system.

The sad news I have for the people of Australia is that you have not got it back. The ALP will lose office, and the historical record will read that they gave you back your arbitration commission but it is a catch-22: you cannot get into it. You can only get into it by way of strike, and even then it cannot arbitrate on the questions at issue. It can only arbitrate on the issue of the strike. I have spoken many times, thinking that they could, but I was incorrect. I thought that so long as you had a strike you could then get into the arbitration commission and secure arbitration. For the powerful unions that is all right. For that five per cent of the workforce that belong to powerful, good unions—some might say bad unions but I will say at least they are very aggressive on behalf of their membership—it is all right. But the other 95 per cent could go on strike as long as you like in some areas and no-one could care less. As far as the employer is concerned, you could stay out there until you go hungry.

That is why we need arbitration—so that it is fair to both sides. We are a civilised society; we do not play football without a referee. The fact is that the ALP did not give access to arbitration except in a very limited way by way of a strike. It was the only way you could you get into the arbitration commission. They will be remembered in the history books. Every one of them that sat in this parliament voted for legislation along those lines.

Please God that we will be able, before this parliament dies, to put back into this parliament—we have urged everyone in the Labor Party to please give it back—our right to arbitration so that we do not have to go on strike to get into the arbitration commission and that when we do get in there they are able to make an award. Quite frankly, an employer is supposed to try and make ends meet, and it is very difficult, because with the free-market regime imposed upon them they are forced to either close their doors completely or go down to Chinese wages. There is no in-between here!

I have two other minor matters which I need to address. Both are very difficult areas, but the area of bullying worries me greatly. Obviously, I have worked in mustering camps on many occasions in my life, and you do not say politely to the bloke, 'Shut that gate.' That is not how it works in a mustering camp, I can assure you. And in mining, if you are hitting a shaker with a sledgehammer—as was one of my many jobs at the mines when I worked there—you do not say, 'Get off that shaker because it is about to come back at you at 64 kilometres an hour.' I am afraid that the language that is used when you address someone in that situation could very well be construed as bullying. I think in a lot of cases it would be construed as bullying.

When I jumped into the big lead flue without a safety belt on, my foreman did not say: 'Oh, Bobby, that is naughty of you! Can you please get out and put the belt on?' That was not what happened. So I am worried about right of entry—very seriously worried about right of entry—because it is a de facto way of cutting out any trade union involvement at all. All we are saying is that the worker has a right to be represented, and then he has a right to a fair go: he goes to arbitration and, please God, we get reasonable outcomes from the arbitration commission. That was the system for 100 years in this country. The system in this country was that we paid more for our wages—not like the Liberal Party, who keep saying, 'Wages are too high; we've got to compete,' which is code for saying, 'We'll work for Chinese labour wages.' (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, it might surprise you to find that I am speaking on the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, because I think we have strayed from the path in recent times.

It just keeps coming: the final weeks of this parliament and the mad rush from this government to jam through ill-considered legislation. It must be said that this government has an enormous track record in this area. We are used to watching the projects unravel before our eyes and, in fact, eventually inflict damage on individuals, communities, business and the economy generally.

I welcome the minister's announcement of the withdrawal of the clauses in this bill that pertained to the increased right of entry and increased obligations of employers to fly union officials in and out of remote sites. This would certainly have led to the coalition having no choice but to oppose the raft of legislation. Certainly, those two clauses in particular are totally unpalatable. Both proposals were a blatant grab to swing the industrial pendulum even further and to wind back the industrial relations time clock to the 1970s.

Before I focus on the impact of the bill as it is now presented, I might just take a moment to examine the work of the House of Representatives committees, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, which I know you have been a very active member of. One of the consequences of the unusual circumstances that this parliament has found itself in has been the huge jump in inquiries into bills referred to the House standing committees. The demands in the last few weeks have been particularly onerous, not just for the members but probably even more importantly for the staff, because in the end the quality of the reports that are returned to the parliament to consider are underwritten by the very professional conduct of the staff assigned to the various committees.

In the case of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, it seems we have been at something of an epicentre for many of the government's last-minute attempts—after more than 5½ years in parliament, it must be said—to ram legislation through the parliament in what in effect are the dying days of the 43rd Parliament. The eleventh hour, if you like, or perhaps some would see it, in the case of this government, as five minutes to midnight.

The education and employment committee, of which I am the deputy chair, have been asked to finalise no fewer than five reports pertaining to legislation in the last few weeks and now have three more on our books that the government is demanding considered responses on by the end of next week, basically, or in those very first few days when we come back for the next sitting weeks. Clearly, this is not the way that the parliament should operate and is a sign that the government is in complete disarray. Unfortunately, in a practical sense that has impacted heavily on our report on this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, which was tabled in the House just yesterday.

On this bill, the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013, the committee received 40 submissions, and 12 individuals participated in a half day of hearings in Melbourne on 24 May. Just a half day—and, for a bill that had the far-reaching ramifications that the bill presented to the committee at that time had, the half day was simply not sufficient to fully examine its full implications. Most of the consideration time, not surprisingly, was drawn to the most controversial issues, which now, as of last night, have effectively been removed from the bill. So it is disappointing to me that we did not have more time to consider those family-friendly matters that are proposed in the bill and, of course, the antibullying clause. It becomes very obvious that the chaos surrounding the government's rushed legislative program is deeply impacting on the committee's very important work of providing considered advice to the parliament. I thank the hardworking members of the secretariats that are doing their best to keep up with this almost-out-of-control flurry of activity.

Of the points that remain in the bill, I think the biggest and most controversial is the proposal to introduce an individual right of recourse for those who believe they have been bullied at work. I will spend some time focusing on that clause. Some of the very good things the committee system does provide to this parliament are the considered, in-depth analyses of major issues facing our country, and such was the case with the education and employment committee's six-month-old report Workplace bullying: we just want it to stop, in which I participated as the deputy chair. This inquiry, whose report I have here with me, was not an easy inquiry. It was very confronting for the members of the committee, primarily because we invited the public to make personal statements to the committee. We received 319 submissions, and most of them, it must be said, were from individuals who felt that they had been the victims of bullying in the workplace. Many of those were confidential. As we moved around Australia taking personal representations from the various bodies which sought to give evidence, at each hearing we allotted a time frame for individuals to come forward and tell their stories if they wished. We did not identify them apart from their initials because we felt there were possible negative impacts for them in the workplace.

It was a pretty sad story. We were not adjudicators on these individual cases and we basically only heard one side of the argument, but you could see that whether or not the bullying was real or whether or not individuals have a lower threshold for things they may consider bullying is almost irrelevant because in the end there could be no doubt that individuals were damaged by what they at least saw as bullying. But it is such a hard thing for the parliament and for that committee to actually make solid recommendations about what we should do to combat bullying in the workplace. We also had quite a revealing meeting with the parents of Brodie Panlock in Victoria. Of course, there is now a law in Victoria called Brodie's Law, and that was very influential on what the committee had to say and found in the end as well.

In any event, that inquiry made 23 recommendations to the government. I must say I am disappointed that this bill, now that it has been amended—and previously—picks up on just one of those recommendations, recommendation 23, allowing for an unspecified individual right of recourse. There was, as I said, a whole raft of different recommendations in the report, and many of them were very positive in the matter. They were looking at education and support in the workforce, informing employers of their obligations, helping employers deal with those issues within the workforce and helping the workforce understand what it is to be treated in an appropriate manner within the workforce. As I said, it is a little disappointing, then, that the minister has chosen just recommendation 23—which, if anything, is the recommendation with a bit of stick in it—and seemingly ignored the recommendations that had a bit of carrot in them.

In fact, recommendation 23 was one that the coalition members felt they could not support in the form it was presented in. I will read a short quote from our dissenting report:

Further, the Coalition Members are concerned that enabling individuals to take such action will open a door to potential abuse of the device. Frivolous actions, or even worse, actions driven by malicious intent would have the ability to tie employers up in rolling court actions for extended periods.

There is no doubt that individuals should have a way of shutting off bullying when they are affected in the workplace. They need a place to go to; we understand that. But, as it is presented in that form, it becomes the first port of call for someone who believes they are a victim of bullying. It is a concern—it was a concern to the dissenting members at least—that this would become unmanageable in the workforce and may in fact be counterproductive. If in the end the individual who feels affronted by workplace bullying decides to go to Fair Work Australia before they go to their employer, I think we have a problem.

In that light, that is why I am pleased that the coalition today is putting up an amendment to this bill which would put a filter in place and establish a prima facie case before the individual could access Fair Work Australia. It should not be seen as a shut door; it should be seen as a way of making sure individuals and employers are not accused wrongly and dragged into an industrial court without having some say in that matter. I hope that those amendments are received well in the House. I think they will improve the legislation as it is being presented.

That really is what I have to say on the bullying matter. We are broadly in support of the other matters that are brought forward—certainly the family-friendly measures. I think they actually mean very little because there is nothing to stop any employee asking for a flexible work arrangement. There are no laws in the book. In fact, in every good workplace one would expect that that is exactly what would happen. I hope once again that this is not something that becomes a case of the letter first and the approach later, because I have been an employer in the past and I know how confronting it can be to receive a letter from someone that you just saw outside the door five minutes ago. That does not lead to a friendly workforce. Certainly people with the challenges in their lives that are listed in this bill should have the right to request flexible work arrangements, but then so should everybody else that goes to work. We all have the right to request flexible working arrangements.

The other part of the bill, of course, is on the rostering. Once again, as we would hope, there seems to be no compulsion in the bill. There are no penalties for not observing what the bill is asking you to do, so once again you can ask why it is in the bill. But it is in the bill, and I do not think it is sufficiently offensive to employers Australia-wide for us to say we cannot accept that. But you do wonder, because there are no consequences, why it is in there. It would appear to me that it is largely for political purposes—marketing as we head towards the election. The government is very good at naming policies to make them sound quite different to what they are. In this case the minister—

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Work Choices!

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister heckles me, and he may well, because I might cut too close to the bone. But it may well be that these clauses are being pushed through the parliament just for the purposes of marketing.

In closing, it has become idiosyncratic of these last few weeks that I believe there are 103 bills before the parliament, and perhaps in excess of that. It is just so difficult to believe that due process can be applied to all those bills, because not only are we down to 9½ sitting days in this chamber but there are only eight in the other place. I think that, if we are moving legislation that ties Australia up for a number of years or until the government can find time to address many of the issues that this government has got wrong, it is a dangerous time for us to be shoving these bills through the parliament when there will be no right of recourse possibly until about the first week in November.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I introduced the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 into the House of Representatives, I made the point that the Labor government fundamentally believes that the prosperity of Australia relies largely upon the creation of production value in Australian workplaces. This Labor government encourages productive, collaborative, innovative, profitable, safe and cooperative workplaces. This bill and the amendments the government has put forward reflect these priorities. Productivity should never be about cutting wages or entitlements. We do not support a workplace relations system that allows important protections to be undermined through a 'race to the bottom' brand of flexibility. We understand that the drivers of productivity improvement at the enterprise level are stimulated by innovation and creativity. We understand that engagement at all levels of the enterprise needs to occur not just during bargaining for an agreement or contract once every three or four years but on a day-to-day basis. Engaged employees are productive employees. Increased productivity in enterprise cannot be achieved if you disenfranchise your employees. If your highly trained employee needs to leave because they have caring responsibilities, or if a worker with a strong track record cannot return to work on a particular day because they need to balance their family arrangements, this is important. On this side of the House we understand that, for the modern family, balancing work and family time can no longer simply be described by the 1960s paradigm of 9 am to 5 pm.

This bill implements several of the recommendations of the independent Fair Work review panel, and it is the result of extensive consultation with both employer and employee stakeholders during the review and since the review report was published last year. It reflects recommendation 1 of the independent Fair Work review to include in the functions of the Fair Work Commission that it should promote cooperative and productive workplace relations. It includes new family-friendly arrangements such as further flexibility in relation to unpaid parental leave and the right of pregnant women to transfer to a safe job. It provides an expanded right to request flexible working arrangements, including for working parents, workers with caring responsibilities, workers who are of mature age or have a disability, and those suffering from family violence. It provides greater clarity about what reasonable business grounds are for employers considering and responding to such requests.

Our bill makes it clear that this Labor government believes in the value and utility of penalty rates by reflecting the government's position that work at hours which are not family friendly is fairly remunerated. This is done by amending the modern awards objective to ensure that the Fair Work Commission, in carrying out its role, must take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working outside normal hours, such as employees working overtime or on weekends. This bill includes new consultative arrangements to recognise that employees have family responsibilities outside work that can be adversely affected when changes to employees' rosters and regular working hours are proposed. Furthermore, this bill provides for reforms to the right of entry regime in response to the independent Fair Work review panel recommendations, with amendments to better balance the ability of registered organisations to represent their members professionally with the need for employers to go about their business productively.

I regret this, but I often say that the Liberal Party—the conservatives—cannot be trusted on workplace relations. It is a fact. It is a matter of record. There is ample evidence to support this assertion. There were employees who were ripped off under the last conservative government. There were employees who were sacked for no reason with no compensation under the previous conservative government. There were employers who were promised simpler workplace relations laws and better economic outcomes under the conservatives. All of these businesses and employees were betrayed.

I acknowledge the position of the members for Lyne and New England in seeking through their skills to achieve consensus on workplace relations matters. That has been my approach as well. For as long as I have been advocating for workers in workplaces, I have been trying to find harmonious cooperation between employees and employers. It has certainly been my approach since becoming the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. We have reviewed legislation and provided the opportunity for all to have their say. We have consulted on policy and we have also provided information to committees reviewing the government's legislation. As a result we have introduced and passed legislation through this parliament that has had, and will have, a profound and positive effect on Australian workers and employers.

I wish to recognise and commend the member for New England's comments reported in the media on Wednesday. He said:

This pre-election environment is not conducive to reasonable discussion on industrial relations. People on both sides have retreated to their entrenched viewpoints, with the result that the debate in the House does not have a lot of relevance to the actual content of the legislation.

This, I think, is further evidence that the conservatives on workplace relations are not all they seem to be. There has been misinformation peddled about this bill and there doesn't need to be. There has been needless fear whipped up about this bill when there doesn't need to be. This has continued after the opposition spokesperson has been briefed on the bill by my very professional department—and I should at this point acknowledge their very hard work in preparing this legislation. The opposition have continued to peddle misinformation about provisions on right of entry that have been introduced into the parliament not last week but in March of this year.

Despite all of this, the opposition was writing to the Independent members of parliament making up stories and fairy tales about helicopter joy-rides, about employers paying for union officials to invade their lunch rooms. The letter actually has a heading called 'The joy-ride scheme'. All of these things are simply untrue. The conservatives know it. Their desire to attack freedom of association and for unions to be able to represent their members knows no bounds. Their only industrial relations policy is to have a royal commission into trade unions. All they wish to do is silence dissent in the community. They will say and do anything.

We have seen this before: when they told employees that their award conditions would be protected by law, or that Work Choices was 'dead, buried and cremated'. I think a better title for their workplace relations policy would have been: 'Never let the facts get in the way of a good story'. 'Never let facts get in the way of a good story' should be the description of the conservatives. They are desperately trying to be a small target on industrial relations. They certainly have extremists in their ranks, but the pragmatic 'keep a small target before the election, don't tell the voters what's going on, hope they vote for as and don't know what we are actually going to do' faction would appear to be winning in terms of some aspects of their industrial relations policy.

But we have been here before. Before the 2004 election the then government never revealed Work Choices. They never put it before the people. They simply promoted their existing policies. The rest is history. They got into power and the power went to their heads. They used their numbers in the Senate to pass laws which were just simply bad for people—and there is not a lot of repentance on behalf of the opposition. Indeed, if you look at the re-publication of the Leader of the Opposition's book Battlelines, there is a chapter in it called 'Unfinished business'. And would you believe that in the chapter entitled 'Unfinished Business' it talks about Work Choices not being all that bad.

This is a reflection of what has been done before and it is an omen of things to come: broken promises, untruths and outcomes that disadvantage Australian workers. The proposed right of entry changes are sensible and reasonable and they deserve the support of the parliament. This Labor government will always stand up for the right of employees to be represented by a union if they so choose and to be represented by their union in the workplace. Those opposite resort to vilifying an entire movement by the actions of a few. It is a shameful and deceitful approach. I have been here in this parliament for any number of years and I have never heard the opposition have a good word to say about trade unions. They fail to recognise the trade union movement's advocacy for employees who have lost pay and conditions through Work Choices; for the workers at Ford. Indeed, they fail to acknowledge the work of the trade unions standing up for the victims of asbestos, asbestosis and mesothelioma.

We on this side recognise that in a free and democratic society there is a role for a democratic, independent trade union movement. We recognise the role that trade unions have played in our industrial and social history in the past and also the present. We on this side recognise that in a functioning democracy you do need to have a strong and vibrant trade union movement. Employees do need a voice. They need it in the parliament, they need it in the community and they need it at work. With the best will in the world, sometimes bad things happen to good people, and this can happen at work. Work is where we make our living. It is important that people have the right to be able to be represented when they have issues and concerns about their conditions.

The government will also shortly introduce technical and clarifying amendments, including amendments to clarify the operation of the bullying provisions in respect of members of the ADF, the AFP and our security agencies. Clarifying amendments will explain the powers that the Fair Work Commission currently exercise in conferences. This does not extend the powers of the commission; it simply clarifies the existing powers. It provides for the transitional arrangements for registered organisations disclosure and reporting obligations for a limited transitional period, and clarifies the provisions relating to the disclosure of remuneration and reimbursement to avoid unintended consequences with the amendments passed by the parliament in the last year.

We wish also with these amendments to allow the Fair Work Commission to deal by consent with unlawful dismissal claims and general protection claims relating to dismissal to avoid the complexity and expense of the parties going to court. The commission can only exercise these powers by the consent of both parties. Following discussions with the Fair Work Commission and the opposition, we also recognise that we should confirm that the commencement of the Fair Work Commission's bullying jurisdiction would be on 1 January 2014.

This bill reflects the government's commitment to improving the lives of Australian workers. We are committed to supporting business flexibility and profitability. We support productivity. I would note that, under Labor, in the last seven quarters labour productivity has increased on each occasion over seven quarters. I am pleased also to report that the average of lost time industrial action under Labor has been one-third of that under the Liberals—and, in the construction sector, an even lower rate.

This bill reflects the government's priorities. We believe in modest, balanced and pragmatic enhancements to the Fair Work Act to encourage productive, collaborative and clever workplaces. The bill reflects the government's priorities to make our workplaces safer, more cooperative and more productive. We provide certainty to employers in key areas whilst ensuring workers, especially those with family and caring responsibilities, effectively participate in the workforce.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.