Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may be of no surprise to the House that I rise to oppose the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 and support the amendment put forward by the shadow minister for workplace relations. This bill is a clear attempt to demonise the union movement and leave workers across this country alone in their desire to pursue better working conditions and standards. The bill proposes to limit workplace access in order to eliminate unnecessary disruption to workplaces. But, in restricting the right of entry, it also presents a barrier to an employer's ability to access unions with a view to pursuing genuine collective bargaining. I will come back to the issue of demonising but, as I say, the bill is creating barriers to entry by requiring union officials to obtain various entry permits from employers before they may enter the workplace, effectively giving employers power to control their employees' exposure to a union's influence. If someone calls a union official into the workplace that person can be identified and that could lend itself to other forms of vilification—probably not from the trade union movement but maybe from the employer.

As my colleague has indicated, as has presumably occurred in the North West Shelf, if one union is found to enter the workplace too frequently all other unions can be excluded from the site. This is a clear attempt to banish the influence of unions from the workplace. This applies to all unions including unions registered under the Workplace Relations Act, who have a statutory responsibility imposed upon them under their registration. It is not simply targeted at consortiums of interested parties designed to promote a stronger bargaining influence for employees. There has been no let-up on this—members opposite continually tell us about the horror stories of how unions have allegedly interfered with various businesses in their electorates and how no employer that they know would never take undue advantage of these new laws; as a matter of fact, it is now considered the Holy Grail to have a greater degree of flexibility in the workplace.

The bill is a clear attempt to play dirty politics, particularly in targeting unions operating in the building and construction industry, principally the CFMEU, the Australian Workers' Union, the Transport Workers Union and the Electrical Trades Union. The members of these unions work in some of the most dangerous industries across Australia, with about 40 fatalities occurring each year on building sites alone. In the main, union representatives put in a pretty big effort and an honest effort to look after the genuine interests of the workers employed in the industry, and they deserve a little bit more than the contempt which has been dished up to them by this government.

I have a personal interest in this topic. I have two sons working in the building industry. I know of some of the risks that are taken on simply by operating on various industrial sites. I know of all the efforts, statutory or otherwise, designed to make the workplace as safe as possible. Regrettably accidents happen—and with a high degree of frequency on these industrial sites. Unfortunately my eldest son, Nicholas, happened to be working at a site at one of the plants referred to by the previous speaker, on the North West Shelf. While he was working there as an electrician the person working next to him was crushed to death. I am not saying that the death resulted from a shortfall in the safety regulations. I understand that accidents happen and I understand that there is a propensity for risk in heavy industries. I am simply saying that that is what occurred. I am sure that I am not the only one standing in this place who has children employed in the trades. For me, I would say it would be a good thing to have a third party looking out for the safety of employees. So, I make no apology when I oppose this bill. I do not do it simply for political gain, but I do it as a parent. I want to make sure that my kids are as safe as possible when they are working on their building and construction sites.

I must also admit that I do not come to this debate with no experience in industrial relations. The government often cites the fact that many of us in the opposition were once trade union officials. Prior to going into business, I too was a union official and proudly represented workers throughout the country, when I was engaged with the Australian Workers Union and, subsequent to that, when I was engaged with the Police Federation of Australia—after all, police officers too are workers and they are effectively covered by the legislation which is being debated tonight.

I appreciate both sides of the employment relationship; however, I know that when it comes to employee relations there is not a level playing field. It is not a matter of entering into negotiations one-on-one with everyone having equal freedom and flexibility when negotiating. It is not that bipartisan.

I clearly understand that business needs to be prosperous, competitive and efficient and that, through its efforts, it generates and provides jobs. On this side, we are all about jobs. We are about job creation. What we object to and, no doubt, what the trade union movement objects to is situations where employers utilise regulation simply for the purpose of exploiting their workers. The personal vendetta of those opposite against unions and the union movement is well known. I accept that. I understand that the Liberal Party are anti-union; it is in their DNA. Their unscrupulous agenda against working Australians is something that we should be more concerned about. They are simply disguising it as an attempt to make workplaces more flexible, when what they are doing is reducing the employee's ability to actually participate in genuine collective bargaining—actually reducing the unit price of labour when entering into a wage negotiation.

This bill has been pushed forward and is only being debated tonight, quite frankly, to ensure that this government looks tough when it comes to industrial relations, because it cannot do what it really wants to do to. What this government wants to do and what the Liberal Party wants to do is recreate Work Choices. They would like to see it made possible once again. Despite it being 'dead, buried and created,' I think they are looking for a resurrection.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cremated.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cremated—I take the interjection. What they are looking for is a resurrection. They want to see that so-called flexibility reintroduced.

I would like to talk a little bit about that flexibility, because we heard a lot about that and a lot about what was good for businesses from the Howard government. You are right, Mr Deputy Speaker: in those days my electorate was another electorate, Werriwa. It was very much a working class area, with a lot of underprivileged people and a lot of Housing Commission homes. I spent a lot of time with people out there when this came through—the innovations of the new flexible agreements being entered into. I called at the various workers' homes, and they would tell me that they were given an agreement to sign. The agreement was not, 'Look, we are going to sit down and have this negotiation,' and, 'We want you to come back and discuss it'—not even as an ambit claim. This was, 'You either take it or leave it.' If you did not take the agreement then you opted out of being allocated the overtime shifts. Every agreement I saw, and I assure the House that I saw many, was struck on minimum wages. We are not talking about some inflated sort of wage structure and people running around in suits and ties; we are talking about people who were on bare minimum wages. They were being offered, 'You either sign the agreement or you don't pick up any of the overtime shifts and you don't get the shift allowance.' And those shifts were really what made it worth their while being there.

As I say, I attended many of those houses and spoke to people—many of them were in tears. They felt that they had no other option than to sign the agreement. As one young bloke freely told me, 'I can't read the agreement; I can't read. But if I don't sign it, I don't have a job.' He actually asked for representation and that was denied him. I still see this young bloke around after many years now. This was just something so profound to think that a person could not even read the agreement but was expected to sign it. That was part of this 'flexibility'.

I did have the opportunity to speak with a couple of people on the board of that company—a couple of them were very well-known figures in Olympic circles. I asked them, 'Why did you do this to your employees?' They thought about it and said quite honestly—they had no axe to grind, I suppose—'Because the law allows us to do it.' They thought: 'If the law says that we can do this and we can effectively pay people below the wage rate if they sign the contract—if that is what you in the parliament and the government agreed to—well, why can't we do it? It's good for our shareholders.' They did not mince words on that; they did it because they were allowed to do it.

If the government is putting this bill before us today in the hope of creating some form of mutual admiration society between individual workers and companies as a basis for negotiations for the future, then that is just disingenuous, because they know it is not going to be the case. In the changes they are making through this bill, they have removed many of the protections that would protect a worker from negotiating away remuneration for non-remunerative conditions. They have removed those protections. There is no disadvantage test to that extent. If people could be forced to sign a contract—and as night follows day, I witnessed this occur—why couldn't you force a person to give up conditions by saying, 'Unless you sign this you don't get your overtime shift and you don't get other forms of remunerative benefits'?

Instead of having a protection built into the system, you simply need to get the employee to sign a statement that says, 'Trading-in these monetary conditions left me no worse off.' If you get them to sign the agreement in the first place, it would not be hard to force them to sign that statement either, I would have thought. At that point, I say that this is absolutely disingenuous.

This bill allows that no annual leave will accrue while employees are on workers compensation, and to that extent it is going a little further than Work Choices. But one of the big things are the requirements about a greenfield site. These requirements will allow employers to pick and choose who they want to negotiate with. It will allow employers not to negotiate, if they wish, for some reason or other, whether it is with a recalcitrant union or not. It also allows employers, after three months, unilaterally to go to the Fair Work Commission to have an agreement approved without the support of employees or the industrial parties.

This is something that breaks very new ground in that respect, and I am concerned there is such a lack of protection built in to ensure that the genuine interest of employees is being looked after. This is a cruel measure that should be expected from this government that has shown that it has a very significant dislike of trade unions, and that also is prepared to put as much pressure as it can on workers' wages and conditions to contain any wages growth, but all it is doing is trying to put the whip in the hands of employers.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that the previous member's contribution is not completely accurate in its interpretation and reflection on what members on this side are concerned about. From the outset, can I say that many of us on this side consider that the choice to join a union needs to be just that: a choice. There is a role for unions, particularly for employees when they need representation; however, there are many excellent employers that have an excellent relationship with their workforce and want to build an economy, a business and a future not only for the business but also for those that they seek to employ—many of whom are their neighbours living, working and contributing in their communities.

This bill is a clear indication that the government is on track to deliver on its election commitments for the workers and the families of this nation. We are determined to get the fundamentals right in order to create an environment for businesses and workplaces to thrive. There are a number of key elements to these amendments that I will be speaking about today. We are delivering on specific policy promises made by the Labor Party prior to the 2007 election, but which they failed to deliver on. When push came to shove, the former government could not deliver on what it had promised Australian employers and employees. The coalition government understands that it is absolutely critical to ensure that the economic settings are right to help business prosper, which will, in turn, build confidence for further employment of more Australians. We know that the workplace relations laws need to be attuned to the sensible centre and have the balance of protecting workers but creating flexibility not only for businesses to grow but also for workers to have greater opportunities.

The bill will put in place a number of key commitments from our policy to improve the Fair Work laws. The amendments in the bill will ensure that the Fair Work laws maintain a strong and enforceable safety net for workers, while helping businesses expand, create new jobs and deliver higher real wage growth. The changes will restore certainty to the workplace relations system and make the laws more balanced and effective, helping to make Australian workplaces even stronger. We believe in reward for effort and in protecting people's jobs.

In the electorate of Macquarie, there are many employers who work hard to create the right environment and economy for their workers to enjoy their jobs. These employers believe in good faith that employees want to work hard and earn a living without unnecessary interruptions and disturbances.

Integral to this bill are the adjustments to the right-of-entry laws. The right of entry refers to the part of Commonwealth workplace laws which regulate the rights of officials of an organisation, such as a trade union, to enter premises. The current laws have created an environment where a union official can go into a premise even when they have no actual members at that workplace. In 2007, the Labor Party promised on multiple occasions that there would be no changes to the union right-of-entry laws. In a press conference on 28 August 2007, the then Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard said:

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.

These promises were not kept, and unions were given much easier access to workplaces under the Fair Work Act 2009. Can I reinforce and state again that this is about choice for the employer as well as for the employee. Unfortunately, these were routinely exploited by certain union bosses—in one case, up to 200 visits in three months. This has meant that many businesses face excessive workplace visits from unions, even when their employees are not union members and have not asked for the union's presence.

We are amending the right-of-entry provisions to address the imbalance introduced by the Fair Work Act. We will fairly and sensibly balance the right of employees to be represented in the workplace, if they wish to be, with the right of employers to go about their business without unnecessary inconvenience and disruption. A union will only be entitled to enter a workplace for discussion purposes if, firstly, they are covered by an enterprise agreement, or, secondly, they have been invited by a member or employee they are entitled to represent. We recognise that workplaces need to be places of productivity and growth, a place where workers can get on with the job yet know there is opportunity to be represented, should they wish to. What the former government did was to neglect the 87 per cent of private sector workers who are not union members.

There are also changes to greenfield agreements that, again, deliver on our promise made during the election. We want to ensure that enterprise agreements for new projects can be negotiated quickly to ensure that infrastructure projects are not delayed and to encourage investment for everyone's benefit. Under Labor, the Fair Work laws effectively gave unions the power of veto over new projects by requiring an employer always to negotiate a greenfield agreement with a union. Some unions have exploited this veto power by deliberately causing delays and setbacks, while others have used it as a tool to demand exorbitant conditions. This bill will remove the effective union veto power over greenfield agreements. The bill will establish a new, optional three-month negotiation time frame. This time frame will apply where appropriate notice is provided by an employer to the relevant union or unions. If agreement cannot be reached within this time frame, the employer will be able to take its proposed agreement to the Fair Work Commission for approval.

This is about sending a clear message that Australia is open for business. We want to unlock new investment and ensure that unnecessary delays do not occur. We are about removing hindrances to productivity in the economy. We do not believe in getting in the way of good investment.

The coalition recognises that in the current economic climate there is a need for innovative and creative ways to allow flexibility to people's work structure. We recognise the importance of a balanced life—family, sport and leisure—and that there are workers who are happy to make trade-offs to achieve this balance. This bill introduces amendments that will provide clarity and certainty for employees around the utilisation of individual flexibility arrangements, or IFAs. IFAs were introduced as a tool to enable workers and their employees to agree mutually on conditions that suit their needs, while ensuring employees are better off overall. These amendments are again based on recommendations by the Fair Work review panel.

One part of the amendment is that it will strengthen protections for employees by requiring a statement setting out that the arrangements meet the genuine needs of an employee and result in them being better off overall. The unilateral termination period for IFAs made under enterprise agreements will be extended from 28 days to 13 weeks. This will ensure that the employer is not left in the lurch should the employee decide that the new arrangements are not suitable.

It is important to note here that all other rules relating to IFAs will be maintained. These include that they cannot be made a condition of employment, that they must leave the employee better off overall and that they must be genuinely agreed to. We believe that if a business and individual can mutually benefit, why should both parties not be able to use these negotiations and arrangements? There must be agility and flexibility in workplaces to engage employees and enable businesses to continue to grow and thrive.

Under the current Fair Work Act there is a loophole that enables 'strike first and talk later'. We will remove this loophole, which will mean that employees will not be able to strike unless there has been genuine good faith bargaining. The coalition is going where Labor promised to go but of course never got there. Workers being able to strike before bargaining or discussion ever occurred is not sensible and does not do justice to the Australia ethos. This amendment is consistent with the recommendations of the Fair Work review panel. Labor promised this prior to the 2007 election but during six years of governing never legislated this change. They have been all talk and of course have not been able to follow through.

The Abbott coalition government is getting on with the job of building a stronger economy. We recognise that it is the role of government to create the right framework for employers and employees to prosper. There were a number of recommendations made by the Fair Work review panel in 2012, but Labor failed to act upon these common-sense recommendations. We are doing the hard work where Labor has dropped the baton.

These amendments will ensure any barriers to productivity are removed and also ensure that flexibility is available to both employers and employees. This bill implements the coalition's publically stated election policy—nothing more and nothing less. The government is strongly committed to these measures.

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

I will leave it to the discretion of the chair, but with only four minutes it would be fairly foolish of me to attempt to address the bill. Would the chair prefer me to speak now or defer my contribution to the next day of sitting.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy that you call on the chair to adjourn the debate and you would request in your adjournment motion that you resume at the next day of sitting.

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

I move:

That the debate be adjourned and that it be continued at the next date of sitting.

Question agreed to.