Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is any legislation or area of it that shows the difference between this side of the parliament and the other side of the parliament, it is legislation that deals with fair work. We have on this side of the parliament a group of members who are committed to fairness, to equity and to ensuring that all Australians have a fair go, whereas those on the side of the parliament, who, as we just heard from the shadow Treasurer, see people as lifters and leaners. I hate to say it, but those on the government benches tend to think of workers as just being leaners. Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I might be a possible Treasurer but I am not a deputy speaker.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Madam Speaker. Far be it from me to call you 'Deputy Speaker'. There is no piece of legislation that demonstrates the difference more between this side of the House and the other side of the House than legislation that deals with workers or industrial relations—and this is one such a piece of legislation. We heard the Treasurer today make a presentation on the economy to this parliament. The shadow Treasurer, in responding to it, highlighted the fact that we on this side of the House do not agree with the Treasurer's categorisation and stereotyping of the Australian people as 'lifters and leaners'. The Treasurer told the Australian people that living standards may fall. I believe that the Treasurer would like to see living standards fall, with workers getting less, having poorer benefits and being the ones who have to carry this government on its back.

The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 amends the Fair Work Act by proposing an additional approval requirement for enterprise agreements that are not greenfield agreements. The requirement is that the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the new productivity improvements in the workplace are discussed during the bargaining process. All of the existing agreement approval requirements under the Fair Work Act will be retained. This is extra red tape. It is something that will obviously not work and that is designed to ensure that there really is no genuine consultation.

It is argued that the bill will provide guidance and ensure greater transparency regarding the circumstances in which a protected action ballot can be made. But, in actual fact, I believe that it provides for less transparency, because currently the Fair Work Commission must make a protected action ballot order if it is satisfied that an application has been made and the applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. The amendment proposal requires that the FWC have regard to a range of non-exhaustive factors to guide its assessment of whether an application for an order is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. Further, it provides that the FWC must not make a protected action ballot order where it is satisfied that the claim of the applicants for the order is manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on the productivity of that workplace. Madam Speaker, I ask you: how can the FWC assess this?

I put on the record that this legislation is another example of a broken election promise. This government says one thing before the election and does a totally different thing after the election. This bill is inconsistent with what the Abbott government stated before the election. It is a bill that is poorly constructed. It is bad policy. It is something that will not be enforceable. It is poorly worded. And it will result in no change, other than the addition of red tape, inconsistency and expense. It is a brazen attack on workers' democratic right to take protected industrial action. We have seen this with every piece of industrial relations legislation proposed by opposite that comes through this parliament. It is packaged as one thing but in actual fact is designed to be an attack on workers' rights. It is designed to be an attack on workers' conditions. It is designed to be an attack on workers' pay. Those on the other side of this House need to come to terms with the fact that Australian industry and the Australian economy will operate best when there is consultation and agreement between all parties. It is not about squashing workers and making sure that they are treated in a way that will lead to—as the Treasurer highlighted this week—falling living standards because this government is attacking their wages.

The Treasurer really needs to get out into the real world. It is all very well asking Australians to spend more; but, if he is attacking their wages, how can they do that if their wages are falling? Figures have been released this week showing that the cost of living has increased, Australians are buying less with their money and that real wages have fallen. So I see this as just another attack on workers. It is ambiguous and misunderstands the key elements of our workplace relations system and reads exactly like a bill would if the minister had no idea and was frustrated that he had passed exactly zero of the five bills he had introduced prior to this one. I believe that the minister really does not understand workplace relations; but, if he does, he just sees it as a way to suppress wages and conditions.

At the start of my contribution to this debate, I mentioned that this was just another broken promise. I would just like to highlight that, because before the election the government was saying that there would be no changes to workers' wages and conditions and that they support workers' wages and conditions. Every single time a piece of industrial relations legislation has come before this parliament, we have seen the government attacking it.

If the government is serious about addressing productivity, it should have unions and managers or employers involved in the process. This legislation is really about unions. It is about considering how to improve productivity by only talking to one part of the equation. I believe, as I think those of us on this side of the House do, that you get the best outcome in any sort of industrial relations discussions if you have got both the employer and the employee sitting down together and working it out; you do not have things dictated by one side of the equation.

I really think that the government misses out on what workplace relations is about. It is opting for this new requirement, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the process of bargaining for, and eventually completing, an enterprise agreement. The government's proposal does nothing whatsoever except adding increased costs and red tape and creating uncertainty. If the government can explain to the Australian people how uncertainty is going to increase productivity, I would be interested to listen to that. That is because my understanding is that where uncertainty exists you are going to have less economic activity and you are going to have lower productivity.

This government is driven by ideology. It really has no commitment to coming to terms with a real solution, actually increasing productivity and recognising that workers have rights. The government's intention is not actually to deal with productivity, but instead to continue to crusade against workers by imposing requirements on unions, while providing options for employers to avoid the requirements. It is about pushing real wages down further and about making workers the lifters; then those that are on the other side of the equation can just sit back and be the leaners—not that the Treasurer would like to put that to the Australian people. There is also a risk, because of the fact that this bill is so poorly constructed, that the bill could be used as a veto power by employers. In actual fact, it will be impossible to actually get to a situation where there can be any agreement on a matter.

By amending section 443 in the way the government has, it has imposed a different and higher standard test on unions to take protected industrial action over and above the test in section 413, which employers are subject to in the case of employer lockouts. That is anything but fair. It is imperative in any piece of legislation that it should be inherently fair. Unfortunately, it is not fair in this legislation. The government said before the election that workers and businesses must be genuine in their attempts to bargain so that realistic improvements in employment conditions can occur for everyone. Well, this is a one-sided piece of legislation that is not about ensuring that improvements in employment conditions and the workplace can occur for everyone. It is about a very one-sided approach and a very unfair approach to workplace relations.

I am interested to hear from the government about what will happen if an employer stalls the bargaining. What is the solution there? How will that be dealt with? I have heard nothing in any of the contributions from those opposite to allay fears that I have that this will be a scenario which will be manifestly bad for workers. The government has introduced a new provision that means that the Fair Work Commission must not take protective action ballots if it is satisfied that the applicant's claim or claims are manifestly excessive and if, having regard to conditions of the workplace and the industry in which the employer operates, it would have a significant adverse impact on the productivity of the workplace. The decision as to what will improve and decrease productivity in the workplace can be very subjective. For instance, I believe undertaking a training course increases the productivity of workers because they are better skilled and have better knowledge, but the employer might see that that is time when workers are absent from the workplace.

I have to say that this is very, very poor legislation. It will do nothing to improve productivity in this country. Rather, it is legislation that was introduced into this parliament by zealots on the other side of this House who are all about inflicting pain on workers and more about ensuring that employers have the final say when it comes to anything in relation to the workplace, rather than through consultation and agreement. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before the member for Shortland goes, I will just tell her a couple of things about this bill. This bill will is basically based on our coalition paper of May 2013. Now, I am not the smartest person in this House, but I think May 2013 was actually before September 2013, which was when the election was. If we got it out and about there, it qualifies as something that we said before the election. The member for Shortland also suggested that this bill will give an employer a veto to frustrate bargaining by refusing to talk about productivity—that is simply false. This bill does not give an employer or employees a veto power. The good faith bargaining framework will apply to productivity discussions in the same way that it applies to other discussions in all forms of bargaining. If any particular party does not engage in the bargaining process, good faith orders may be available. The bill does not alter that at all. The member for Shortland, who was begging us for information, has now walked out of the chamber. I hope she gets the Hansard and reads these things here. This bill does not make it more or less likely that the bargaining will be deadlocked. All the bill does is require the parties to discuss productivity. It does not require agreement or consensus to be reached.

Fair dinkum! That was 15 minutes I will never get back in my life. I would rather have cigarettes put out on my eyes than sit through that again!

This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 by promoting harmonious and productive enterprise bargaining. This bill will require discussions about improving workplace productivity to occur during enterprise bargaining. Fancy that, when we are talking about wages increases, someone from a company or the employees might actually want to find out how we are going to increase productivity, how we are going to improve productivity and therefore how the company is going to make more money. This bill will ensure that applicants for protected action ballots have first engaged in genuine and meaningful talks and that the claims that are being advanced are not unrealistic. This bill will require the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied that productivity improvements were at least discussed during the enterprise bargaining process before it can be agreed upon. This bill backs the coalition's policy of having fair and productive workplaces.

In May 2013, the coalition launched its paper, The Coalition's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws, as part of our election commitment—that was before the election. Our policy states:

Our policy will help make Australian workplaces even better, by improving the Fair Work laws to provide a stable, fair and prosperous future for all.

The coalition believe in reward for effort—and shouldn't we all believe in that? We believe in protecting people's jobs. The member for Shortland is propagating this idea that we are out there with the twirly end of a moustache, trying to be Dick Dastardly and ruin everyone's Christmas and kill people's jobs off so that we can be pure evil. It is just a ridiculous notion. But, at the same time, the coalition understand the need for healthy businesses to create opportunities for workers to get ahead and to ensure that nobody is left behind. I have some more things to say about this later on. We have already introduced a range of reforms—the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 and the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.

As it currently stands, there is no requirement in the Fair Work Act that productivity be discussed in negotiating an EBA. Can you believe that: currently, you do not even have to discuss productivity! This change will ensure that the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that productivity improvements were discussed during the EBA discussions. No official agreement has to be met, but at least a discussion about improving productivity can take place as part of the bargaining. The Fair Work Act will also require a secret ballot of employees to be conducted before the protected industrial action can take place. This action must, of course, be approved by the Fair Work Commission. The commission must now be satisfied that the applicant has been 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement'. This is not actually defined in the Fair Work Act.

This bill will provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Fair Work Commission must factor into discussions. The amendments will also provide that the Fair Work Commission must not authorise a protected union ballot, if it is satisfied the claims over industrial action are excessive or would have made an adverse impact on workplace productivity. These are just common sense changes. Industrial action should not be the first resort; it should the last resort option after negotiations have taken place.

We have recently seen reports of protected action ballot orders made and protected industry action threatened in pursuit of claims that would increase the salary package for marine engineers in Port Hedland—I heard the member for Corangamite talking about this—by around 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated that the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of the existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees work only six months of the year on a week-on week-off roster. That is an extreme and very obvious example, but these things play out in everyone's workplace.

Similar irresponsible conduct was being shown where industrial action was taken by the MUA and the MUA marine operators in the offshore oil and gas sector in Western Australia in 2010. These negotiations resulted in 30 per cent wage increases in just under four years with no productivity benefits at all, following industrial action being taken. Just months following this case, the MUA brought Australian ports to a halt in pursuit of a $46,000 wage increase for workers already earning over $100,000 for 185 work days per year.

In February 2014, Martin Ferguson, the former resources minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments, in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia said:

We must improve our productivity and reduce the costs of doing business in Australia.

…      …   …

High labour costs and low productivity are an unsustainable mix. And therefore – elements of the Fair Work Act must be looked at.

To me, that is just common sense. I do not know why we are having this argument. That is just common sense. Further, he said:

A workplace relations system that drives investment to other countries is in nobody’s interest; certainly not those union members and their families who will be bargaining themselves out of a future.

Now, of course, unions would argue that these changes will make it harder for industrial action to take place. But these measures are common sense. Surely, both employer and employee would agree that both sides need to mediate before industrial action occurs? Unions are saying that these changes will make applications for protected ballots more costly, but this cost is only towards the union. Overall, these proposals will not change employee's rights to take protected industrial action during bargaining.

These amendments are the last of our election commitment to improve the Fair Work laws. Only the coalition understands that a nation's wealth is produced by businesses, not by people and not by government. Business must make a profit; business is not a charity. You must make a profit to keep on employing and paying people.

The government is serious about providing opportunities for business in Australia—to be free of regulation, free to employ and free to prosper. These reforms will help build Australia's prosperity for future generations to come.

I think the Kelly report came out and said that wages should not be correlated with the profitability of a firm. In the first 10 years of our federation we decided then, no matter what the profitability of the firm, that we would be a high-wage country. You can have high wages if you have low input costs and high productivity. In the last parliament we installed the carbon tax, which made our input costs go through the roof. Excessive wage demands make your input costs go through the roof. Another issue is productivity. If either of those two goes out the window, then you lose money. If you have high input costs and lower productivity, business goes elsewhere. It is that simple: we are a high-wage nation. We have new challenges, new and massive opportunities to deliver into the Asian century. Productivity is the key to this. We have to work smarter, smoother and be more flexible.

We have signed free trade agreements with China, Korea and Japan. Minister Robb and Minister Bishop are going all over the place to get these things organised so that we can get to the table. Free trade agreements do not deliver the goods. But they get you a seat at the table, to work. It gives you an opportunity to present and impress. What you then have to do is deliver. It is pointless Minister Robb and Minister Bishop going around the world and signing these things if Australians will not work together. So we have to be productive, we have to be smarter and more fluid in the way we do things. That comes down to individual workplaces. Take the MUA's door completely out of it and bring it down to your own workplace, your own office and ask: are we doing everything we can?

I will tell you a quick story. I used to have an auction centre. I did an auction one night and Michael Klim, the 100-metre swimmer, and Grant Hackett were there. I said, 'It's very funny that you should be here at this time because, when I open my shed in the morning'—Grant Hackett's best time was about 15 minutes in those days—'it takes about 15 minutes to open it and, in the afternoon when it is time to go home, they beat Michael Klim's record, by shutting the shed in less than 50 seconds.' It is about being productive, about getting to work and when you are at work starting at eight, not just getting to work at eight.

We have an opportunity to diversify. We are a service centre of excellence and 80 per cent of our economy is service based, yet it only represents 15 per cent of our exports. We must be more competitive in this space, we must be more flexible and this legislation is just common sense. It really is just common sense. So, with those few words, I would just like to thank the House and say that I back this bill 100 per cent.

Debate adjourned.