Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. Some months before the 2013 election, the coalition released our policy to improve the Fair Work laws. This policy is all about lifting real wages, increasing productivity, making Australian businesses more competitive and, most importantly of all, generating more jobs. Our government is doing everything to encourage businesses to grow so they can employ more people—something which is of particular importance in my electorate of Corangamite.

Just in the last few months, we have seen some outstanding results in job creation generated by our government in partnership with the previous Napthine government under the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, a fund in conjunction with Alcoa and Ford, which is driving already in excess of 750 new jobs. This is a great result for our region, particularly in the growth sectors in advanced manufacturing, in food processing and also in agriculture. A couple of weeks ago, there was a wonderful announcement that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is moving, in part, to Geelong, establishing a centre of excellence. This was one of the recommendations made by the Victorian economic review panel, which was looking into the Victorian economy in the wake of the closure of car manufacturing. One part of the ABS moving to Geelong is a really wonderful initiative, as it decentralises and invests in our wonderful city. The other thing that I keep talking about in terms of job creation—it is all about jobs and infrastructure—is that, just this week, there was fantastic news for the people of Corangamite with the news that the NBN is being rolled out to 34,000 premises across Corangamite in areas most in need of quicker broadband, across the Surf Coast and across the Bellarine. These are just a couple of examples of our very strong focus on jobs and infrastructure.

Our government's aspiration is to bring industrial relations back to the sensible centre, where the rights of employees are balanced with the rights of employers for the sake of jobs and productivity. I wish at this point to remind members what happens when our industrial relations system is out of balance. We have seen some fairly unfortunate examples in my region, the Geelong and Corangamite region, where improper and unlawful union conduct stifles jobs, productivity and business confidence. Perhaps the best example of that is what happened on the Regional Rail Link worksite, when the conduct of the CFMEU—which can only be described as terribly unlawful to the point where there was very strong action taken by the courts—shut down that site. It caused so much distress, particularly for Boral. The Supreme Court made orders against the unlawful protesting by the CFMEU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Boral was effectively shut out. The CEO of Boral gave some evidence in the royal commission and basically said that this amounted to blackmail. It cost the company $10 million, and he described it as a criminal conspiracy, which really amounted to a situation where Boral was shut out of getting other important work. It is a terrible reflection on the CFMEU and on what happens when extremist, unlawful union conduct invades the workplace. This is the same CFMEU that so heavily backed Labor in the Victorian state election and that is helping to drive up construction costs in Victoria by an average of 30 per cent more than any other state. Throughout all this time, through a prism of the CFMEU donating millions of dollars to Labor, we have had deathly silence from the Labor Party on the unlawful, extreme, thuggish conduct of the CFMEU. Here was Boral, a supplier to Grocon, an innocent party, being shut out of work, and the costs and impacts were profound. As the member for Wannon has raised in his contribution, in this debate today there are two very different positions. There is the one taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 report last night, where he talks about the importance of productivity, and the one here in the House today, where Labor is in denial over the importance of productivity.

As we have heard, the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill before the House implements the final tranche of the government's amendments to the Fair Work Act that were clearly outlined in our policy, and it makes a number of important improvements to the process of bargaining but, importantly, retains employee protections and also employee rights. These changes do not reduce rights; they simply ensure transparency around existing rights. I want to briefly go through each of the main changes. The first one is all about putting productivity back on the agenda by requiring parties to at least discuss improvements to productivity during negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. There is no requirement that productivity be an outcome in terms of any changes to an EBA. There is no requirement that the parties reach agreement on productivity. The only requirement is that it be discussed. Here we have members opposite objecting to this. Incredibly, the member for Bendigo, in her contribution, even said, 'This is not about productivity. This bill is not about productivity.' The kindest thing I can say about her contribution is that she clearly has not read the bill. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition on television last night talking about the importance of productivity for jobs and for growth for this nation, when our government is so focused on building productivity and growing jobs, and we have members opposite blocking such an important part of our industrial relations regime. All we are saying and all we are requiring in the bargaining process is that productivity be discussed. The Leader of the Opposition last night had no problem with that, and, now, in an act of what I can only describe as hypocrisy, we are seeing a very different position.

A second element of our bill is that unions and employees do not use industrial action as a tool of first resort. They must ensure that they have at least attempted to engage in meaningful discussions with the employer before resorting to industrial action. I remind the House that the Fair Work Commission will continue to be at the centre of the industrial action processes. Employees will still have a right to take protected action as part of their bargaining for enterprise agreements. Authorising the ballots to take industrial action will remain the responsibility of the independent Fair Work Commission. So what we are seeing is more transparency for an existing right.

This bill will require a union applying for industrial action to provide the commission with information on the steps the union has taken in negotiating the new agreement, whether the union has told the employer specifically what the employees are seeking in the negotiations—it is common courtesy, frankly—whether the union has responded to employer offers or counter proposals; and generally how far negotiations have progressed. These items are based on a leading decision of the Fair Work Commission on what are relevant considerations the commission should look to before authorising an industrial action ballot. Really, by including these items in a list in the legislation we are seeking to ensure that there is a consistent decision-making approach by the commission and its various members.

The other element of this bill is to ensure that claims, in support of which industrial action is being taken, are not unrealistic or implausible. We recognise, of course, that industrial action is an important employee right. It is a right, however, that must be exercised responsibly rather than capriciously. So the bill gives the independent commission the express power to refuse to authorise an industrial action ballot if the commission is satisfied that the claims over which the unions wishes to take industrial action are manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on productivity.

Currently one of the big issues with the Fair Work Act is that it allows for industrial action to be taken in pursuit of almost any bargaining claim, no matter how extreme, no matter how unrealistic and no matter how unreasonable. I just want to draw on one recent example of reports of protected action ballot orders made in relation to claims by marine engineers in Port Hedland, where they were seeking a pay increase of 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated that the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees only work for six months of the year, on a week-on, week-off roster. Clearly the claim that was being made was completely excessive—manifestly excessive.

What we are seeking to do in this very important amendment is, again, strike a reasonable balance. We have no issue with industrial action but we have an issue with manifestly excessive claims—extreme claims and claims which are calculated to generate industrial mayhem rather than a sense of industrial equity as part of the bargaining process.

I want to very briefly reflect on the contribution of the member for Griffith, who claimed that the bill undermines the right to strike and undermines the right to bargain collectively. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have made that very, very clear. Nothing could be further from the truth but—

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley interjects. I am very disappointed that the member for Chifley has not spoken about the unlawful, thuggish behaviour of the CFMEU and how that has driven down jobs and productivity in my electorate. That has been incredibly disappointing in terms of a very important project, the Regional Rail Link, to which the federal government is contributing $2.9 billion, which is going to be so important for the people of my electorate—the people who live in Geelong and south-west Victoria—connecting with Melbourne.

We have seen that Boral has been shut out in the most terrible of circumstances. And members opposite have said nothing.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have said absolutely nothing about this, and it is, quite frankly, a disgrace. It is really surprising when you have the Leader of the Opposition claiming how important it is for productivity that we see these changes in the work place yet members opposite oppose this bill.

This is all about striking the sensible centre. This is all about respecting the rights of workers, but it is also about reinforcing how important productivity is to the future of our country. As I mentioned, this bill will meet some important election commitments in addition to some election commitments that we have delivered. We have repealed the carbon and mining taxes. We have stopped the boats. We are building the roads of the 21st century, including the upgrading of the Great Ocean Road—a great project, which Labor opposed. We are duplicating the Princes Highway between Geelong and Colac. And, of course, a number of members are working very hard to campaign for Daniel Andrews to change his mind and reverse his economically reckless commitment to rip up the contracts on the East West Link—perhaps one of the most economically reckless commitments that we have ever seen in the state of Victoria.

Our government is focused on job creation. Jobs and infrastructure in my electorate of Corangamite are so important. This bill is an important part of those reforms and I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak in opposition to this bill. There are a few things in the contribution of the member for Corangamite that need to be responded to. I will start where she finished. She said that this government is all about jobs. The joblessness rate in Victoria is a shame. It is a tragedy and it was a major factor in the change of government in Victoria. If the government wishes to be judged on its record on jobs, let them be judged on that frame.

There were a couple of other things that she said. The member for Corangamite talked at some length at the start and at the end of her contribution about the 'sensible centre' in industrial relations. That is a favourite phrase of the Prime Minister that bears no resemblance whatever to this government's agenda for industrial relations. I note that the policy that related to the bargaining changes that are the subject of this bill did refer to striking a balance. As the member for Corangamite said, that was a balance between the obligations on workers and unions and the obligations on managers. However, as has so often been the case under this government, between the policy that was announced before the election and the policy that is before us and contained in this legislation, there has been a substantial change. The balance has been removed. This is all about focusing on workers and unions, not about managers and their obligations in relation to productivity.

It was very interesting that the member for Corangamite criticised the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Bendigo in terms of their contributions to the productivity aspect of this debate—productivity, of course, being the purported justification for this legislation—but she could not say one word about how the provisions contained in this bill would boost productivity. It simply relies on the innate ideological view of members opposite that our pathway to productivity is by driving wages down, weakening unions and taking away employees' rights. The evidence, frankly, goes the other way. Members opposite should be reminded that labour productivity growth has been consistent over the last 12 quarters—that is, three years. Labour productivity is not at the heart of Australia's productivity challenge and, even if it were, the provisions contained in this bill would do very little to boost labour productivity.

I also note that the member for Corangamite asserted that this legislation maintains employees' rights. If she had been listening to the contribution of the member for Griffith, who is a person who knows quite a bit about this—I would venture, quite a bit more than the member for Corangamite—she would understand that that is simply not the case. What we have in this bill is fundamentally an attack on collectivism and on rights—important rights that go to the heart of pretty fundamental questions that go to power relationships between people who earn their living through a wage and those who employ them.

This bill is also, as I said in my opening comments, a broken promise, which perhaps makes it a fitting end to the year. It is flawed in concept and it is also flawed in execution. Above all else, this is very poorly constructed legislation that may not even serve its own purposes. This bill is a disingenuous, pointless and deeply ideological piece of legislation. It reminds us that this government's commitment to red-tape reduction does not extend to the realm of work. This is a matter, again, of form and substance. At one level, this legislation is all about red tape for the sake of it, in terms of the provisions that go to bargaining and productivity tick-boxes. I will say more on that issue. It is also worth noting in this debate how many times this government has already returned to the legislative whirl in relation to industrial relations, despite having, in effect, committed to not doing so prior to the election.

To those opposite who love to speak of unnecessary legislation, I ask this question: what is the problem that this bill is trying to solve? The explanatory memorandum that comes with it is pretty unhelpful and even obtuse on this point. This is pretty fundamental. What is the evidence, for example, of a wage explosion? I said earlier—

Mr Husic interjecting—

There is none, member for Chifley. You would think that would be a relevant consideration.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Yes, indeed—balance should recognise that. The evidence is that labour productivity growth has been consistent over 12 quarters. It has increased over the last three years. I will speak further on the thinness of the productivity justification as I turn to the provisions of the legislation in detail.

I also think some context is required in this debate. Today, as we speak, work is less and less secure. Some of the attitudes towards the position of wage earners is, frankly, staggering. I saw on the front page of the Australian Financial Review yesterday, in response to some commitments made by the new Victorian government, the suggestion that public servants in Victoria would get free money. The suggestion that underpins this, the ideological position going to the wage share that is fair and proper, is staggering. All of us in this place understand—or we have been told and should have listened—the standard-of-living pressures, the cost-of-living pressures, that our constituents face.

Labor members are up for real engagement on these matters, but to simply suggest that pushing downward pressure on wages by denying workers and their representatives the capacity to bargain fairly is just ludicrous. We are up for broad conversation about productivity and the things that might boost Australia's productivity, about investment in infrastructure and about having a national urban policy that might deal with some of the issues around the depth of our labour markets, for example. We are up for investment in skills and training—the sorts of things that this government is walking away from. We are up for a debate about innovation.

I spoke earlier about this bill being disingenuous, but I wonder if that might have been a generous description. The words of the minister in his second reading speech do not quite reach the heights of his 7.30 Report channelling of Comical Ali earlier this week following the defeat of his higher education reforms in the Senate, but they do sit pretty uncomfortably with provisions that are set out in the bill. He claims implementation of election policy. This is farcical. He is delivering on one side of the debate while denying any meaningful engagement and responsibility of the managerial side. For him to assert, as he does, that this bill will ensure that negotiations for enterprise agreements are harmonious and productive is simply nonsense. At one level—the pointless side of this piece of legislation—the issue is that the requirements are simply token, as Professor Andrew Stewart has advised.

This also goes a broken promise. Before the election, the coalition spoke about the joint responsibilities. In this bill it is all about workers. As the shadow minister said, if they were serious about addressing productivity and bargaining, they could have looked at, for example, amendments to the good-faith bargaining rules that would encourage parties to come together. The unevenness of these provisions is deeply problematic. Once again, this is a government that has given scant regard to the concerns of workers. We see obligations imposed on unions, on one hand, with the prospect of an effective veto, at the very least, and, on the other hand, a strongly enhanced bargaining position for employers.

I am also more than a little troubled by the minister's indication of what he describes as the common sense test. What does this mean? What is common sense? It should be clear to anyone in this place that these debates around industrial relations are deeply contested issues, and they are vital. They go to how most of us earn our living, how most of us see ourselves and how most of us provide for our families. The 'I reckon test' is simply not good enough. It is consistent with the shoddiness of the legislation at large. I think that is why the shadow minister has proposed—and this would be sensible—to seek the views of stakeholders on these issues through a Senate committee process. If the minister feels differently about this, he might advise me and my colleagues via SMS as to his real justification.

There are three substantive components to this bill. Firstly, there is the issue of productivity discussion during bargaining—amendments to section 187(1) of the Fair Work Act—which requires the Fair Work Commission to be satisfied, before approving an enterprise agreement, that improvements to productivity at the workplace are discussed during the bargaining process. According to the explanatory memorandum, this does not require the parties to agree to terms, nor to include terms in an agreement about improving productivity. Well, what is the point, particularly when productivity is not defined in the proposed amendments, nor is it presently defined in the substantive act? So, I ask myself: what is the point of discussing productivity when it does not go to the enterprise agreement and is not adequately defined by the amendments or the fair work agreement? Again, I harken back to the contribution of the member for Corangamite who talked about productivity but did not go to any of the challenges of boosting productivity, or to consider, other than merely assert, that these changes would somehow magically make things better. In practice what we have is another box to be ticked that adds nothing substantive to the bargaining process. It is more red tape.

You would think the parliamentary secretary, the member for Kooyong, would be horrified, or perhaps excited, that he can wrap up this into his bonfire of unnecessary regulation next year. This is an unnecessary process with a slightly sinister undertone that it is clearly introduced to restrict workplace rights. On this point there is also the risk that this provision could be used to manipulate bargaining. An employer could say that it does not want to discuss productivity until it has discussed wages or other conditions. This is a possibility because the amendments, as they are drafted, state that productivity must be discussed during bargaining for the agreement, and that they must be met before the commission can approve an agreement. This may be a risk or this may reflect a failure to understand the process.

I turn also, now, to the question of the protected action changes which are deeply concerning. I refer members to the contribution of the member for Griffith, not just because of the manner in which she clearly set out the concerns she and Labor members have, but because of the depth of her experience in this area. She is someone who should be listened to by people like the member for Corangamite. I think it is deeply concerning to see this claimed implication of productivity as an excuse to hinder the capacity of workers to secure their rights through a protected ballot. This is a very significant right. It is upheld in international instruments to which we are a signatory, and we should, as I have said often in this place in respect of similar matters, mean what we say in relation to these obligations that we assume.

The amendments to section 443(2) state that the Fair Work Commission must not grant a protected action ballot in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if it is satisfied the claims of the applicant are manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on productivity. Clearly these changes would make it harder for a protected action ballot to be granted. The explanatory memorandum says that the requirement may limit access to protected industrial action. Clearly the previous speaker had not familiarised herself with that when she spoke about upholding employee rights. This is a pretty fundamental right for workers. The government, through the explanatory memorandum, has admitted that this places the threshold for protected action higher. This amendment does not only introduce red tape, it ties the hands of workers with it, reshaping, again, the power relationships.

If these amendments were to be read strictly, any industrial action could be construed as impacting productivity. I ask myself the question: where would this leave enterprise bargaining? These amendments, above all else, are poorly drafted and clearly would create significant uncertainty in a vital area of the law. Again, the explanatory memorandum refers to workplace productivity as being a feature of the framework, but all I can see from these amendments is more red tape and, concerningly, fewer rights for workers. I do not see how it can be contested that these things do not equate to workforce productivity, but rather are another assault on hard-working Australians. I would be assisted if government members could explain, or even better, reconsider what they think workplace productivity is.

The third substantive element if this bill, briefly, is contained in amendments to section 443(1A) which represent an attempt by the government to codify the decision of Total Marine Services, but go further than this. The definitional elements of what constitutes 'genuinely trying to reach an agreement' have been around since the early 1990s under the Keating government. This codification fundamentally is unnecessary given that the commission does not disregard the factors referred to in the new section. Here we have, again, the government seeking to introduce additional requirements not just to codify the case law as these requirements, unsurprisingly, place additional burdens on unions. No such burden is placed on employers;—far from the balance asserted by the previous speaker—it is placed only on workers through their unions. So, these amendments are a clear broken election commitment.

This government seems to be, through this legislation, doing its best to make workplace laws, at best, ambiguous and uncertain but also attacking workers and their rights. So, I am pleased to stand with the shadow minister and other Labor members in opposing this bill and in welcoming, contrary to what the member for Corangamite said, a real conversation, a real debate, about this bill, a real debate about workplace productivity and about productivity more generally. A Senate committee would provide an opportunity for that debate. These issues are vital. They are vital for the economy and they are also vital for our society. Important, indeed, fundamental rights and vital interests are at stake here.

This is a piece of legislation that was flawed in concept and is flawed in execution. The House should not pass this bill.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 is in line with the coalition's policy to improve the fair work laws. This government is continuing to deliver on its promise to improve the fair work legislation that we currently have in this country. Specifically, this bill seeks to ensure that due process is followed when negotiations for pay increases take place. We want to see an end to Labor's strike-first-talk-later policy. We want to legislatively determine the steps that need to be taken prior to the Fair Work Commission deciding whether an applicant for a protected action ballot order is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. We also want to see an end to the games—where the he-said-she-said stuff is stopped—and make sure that records of the required steps are kept. We also want to require that anyone requesting a pay rise displays evidence of increased productivity.

This amendment bill protects the employee by ensuring that due steps are being followed during the negotiation process. It also protects the employer from being held to ransom by industrial terrorism and avoids the strike-first-bargain-later approach so often used by the unions. Ensuring that due process is followed is fairer on the mum-and-dad employees and the mum-and-dad business owners of Australia, particularly in the electorate of Canning that I represent. The amendment bill specifically outlines what is required by both parties and removes any ambiguity of process. This bill also directly complements the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014 which ensures protected industrial action cannot take place until bargaining has commenced. Currently, legislation allows industrial action to be taken during the early stages of negotiation, often resulting in a stand-off and stymieing any communications aimed at achieving a resolution. The coalition believes that this is not right. In fact, it is wrong. We are making it easier; we are making it simpler—and we are taking a common-sense approach to this legislation.

On the issue of productivity, I refer to my colleague the member for Hume's contribution to this House. In the Australian Financial Review on 1 December, he wrote an editorial piece called 'Productivity is a worker's best friend'. I am pleased to see the member for Fraser at the desk, because in his contribution today—whether the member for Fraser knows it or not—the member for Hume cited the member for Fraser's academic research in giving his reasons why this bill should be supported. I note that the member for Fraser is not on the speakers list. I wonder if that is because the research he had done previously would conflict with the Labor Party's position today? I note with interest that he is not speaking on this bill, because he might have to argue against the research he did as an academic—which supports the main tenets of this bill. We know that the member for Fraser is a highly intellectual person—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we know of his academic record. We also know that the member for Hume is a Rhodes scholar. So let us not have an argument about who has got the kilo brain here. Both of them are well placed to have a say. At the end of the day, the member for Hume, both in his article that I referred to and in his contribution today, made it very clear that productivity is the worker's best friend. He pointed to where the member for Fraser had done research on wage cases in Western Australia, my home state, which justified his argument that productivity adds to wage increases and lowers youth unemployment.

The 'Peel Away the Mask' article, which was first produced in 2001—and has since been revised—and which reflects the unemployment situation in the Peel area of my electorate in Canning, has a lot to say about youth unemployment in the Peel region. Youth unemployment in the Peel region is quite serious because it is always above the national and state average. A lot of this is to do with the exact thing that we are talking about today: young people getting a job where they can actually grow their wages and conditions.

Every member opposite—and we know why they are in here—has to belong to a union. You cannot be a member of the Labor Party unless you are a member of a union. As soon as you talk about productivity or flexibility, the first thing those opposite do is to start going on about Work Choices or taking away workers' entitlements or making sure that they get less.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do note that the member for Perth is not even on the speakers list. If she could get herself on the list and have a go, it would be far more effective than just yelling interjections. If the member for Fraser put himself on the list as well, we could see him try and counter the argument that the member for Hume put—based on the member for Fraser's own research.

Youth unemployment is something that is of concern to everybody in this country, but you cannot increase youth participation unless you improve productivity. As soon as you say 'productivity', those opposite will say that it is an excuse for lowering workers' terms and conditions. It is not, because the whole basis of productivity is doing something smarter and more efficiently. Let us use a very simple example so people can absorb it. If you are an old-fashioned farmer and you have a horse and a plough, you are not going to be very productive. If you are old-fashioned farmer and you have two horses and a plough with some wheels on it, you will be more productive. If you are an old farmer and you have an old Fordson tractor, you are going to cover a lot more ground.

It is all about using innovation and technology to be more productive, and this is what this bill today is about. It is to encourage workers, before seeking a pay rise, to talk about what is on offer. We are not talking about quite reasonable pay rises in terms of CPI. Just because somebody has put up an ambit claim, you cannot expect an employer, a mum-and-dad employer who is trying to run a business with half a dozen people, to say, 'Oh, yeah, you can have everything you have asked for.' It just does not work like that. You would send those businesses broke. In fact, you would put young people in particular out of work, because you would price them out of a job. At the end of the day, productivity is the keynote to growth in this country and it is the hallmark of anything that we want to do to address Australia's debt.

The reason that those opposite oppose this is that they are told to oppose it by their union bosses. I will give you an example. The train drivers in the Pilbara, who essentially only work six months of the year, are on something likes $300,000—for working six months of the year. Have a guess what is happening—companies like Rio and BHP are now putting in driverless trains because those drivers have priced themselves out of the market. I say to those opposite: if you are going to be sensible about this, think about what you can bring to the business.

Earlier I heard one of the members over there—the member for Bendigo, I think—saying: 'All they want to do is make people work harder.' They do not want to make people work harder; they want to make them work smarter. If you work smarter, you can do more in the same period of time. That is Australia's unbelievable advantage in the region.

I will quote from the member for Hume's article of 1 December:

… targeted innovation will add to productivity across labour and capital, particularly in government services. Whether it is applying new IT technologies, establishing new management practices or simple measures to increase workplace flexibility … innovation is the cheapest lunch of all.

So I say: this whole bill is based on the fact that, yes, bargaining and all the things we have talked about are very important, as long as they get those steps right, but the real key to this legislation is: yes, wages can be increased, as long as you can be productive.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) 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, and the member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.