Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the Governor-General’s speech in the address-in-reply debate. I think it is important to recognise that for over 100 years of Australia’s industrial relations system there were awards and safety nets, and wages and conditions were collectively negotiated between employers and employees. But, unfortunately, around 1996 there happened to be some major shake-ups. I would be the first to admit that no system is ever unflawed or perfect, and there is always an opportunity to improve any system. I know that because I played an integral part from 1991 trying to improve award conditions and take-home pay for truck drivers and transport workers in Western Australia.

It is important to have a brief look at the history going back to 1996 and the election of the Howard government. The Howard government had a mandate; they clearly won the election by the will of the Australian voters. But part of their shake-up in industrial relations set the scene for a very rocky road over the following 10 years. In 1996, with the help of the Democrats in this chamber, major changes were made, and Australian workplace agreements were brought in. With the greatest of respect to the Democrats and Senator Murray—I know the contribution he made to try to improve the lot that was confronting the Senate at the time—the Australian workplace agreements had this no disadvantage test. That was introduced as part of the workplace relations reform back in 1996. With the greatest respect to the Democrats, who were trying to do the best thing, there was a government department called the Office of the Employment Advocate that was charged with making sure that when workplace agreements were negotiated there would be no disadvantage, as I said, and workers would not find themselves going backwards. Sadly, it was a disgraceful part of our history. The Office of the Employment Advocate clearly was just another annexure to the Howard Liberal government. I know this because on many occasions Australian workplace agreements came across my desk and had it not been for the ability of employees to use their union to try to negotiate a better outcome there would have been a greater number of workers disadvantaged.

At the same time, running in parallel across the other side of the country, we had the Court Liberal state government, and we had a certain minister who had an absolute—I don’t know—disregard for workers and who introduced individual workplace agreements. These individual workplace agreements were disguised in what were called the first, second and third waves of IR reform, which saw some of the most abhorrent workplace agreements that you could ever imagine, where workers lost numerous conditions. To make it worse, it really was on a take it or leave it basis.

When we talk about individual workplace agreements there is a misconception on the other side of the chamber that it is all about flexibility and what is best for both parties. Sadly, that could not be further from the truth. And we witnessed this. In fact, we witnessed it to the stage that it got so bad in Western Australia that we had some 20,000 workers filling the streets of Perth and marching up to Parliament House. I remember attending that rally. To those from Victoria, 20,000 people on the street might not seem like a lot. Twenty thousand workers on the street protesting against archaic industrial relations legislation in Sydney might not be a lot. But, coming from that great state of Western Australia, 20,000 people on the streets is a lot—they were probably on their way to a West Coast Eagles-Fremantle derby or to the Perth Cup. So there were a significant number of workers protesting. Finally, it led to the demise of the Court Liberal government. And that election was very clearly fought on industrial relations.

We saw the same thing happening here. In 2004 the Howard government took control of the Senate. There was no mandate to tip industrial relations on its head. There was absolutely no mandate in the 2004 election yet the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the minister for industrial relations said they were going to tip industrial relations on its head. There was absolutely no mandate at all. Unfortunately, Mr Howard could not help himself; he had control of the Senate and he could do what ever he liked. So in 2004 along came the Work Choices legislation.

We have had all the arguments for and all the arguments against. Every senator on this side of the chamber spoke against Work Choices. Sadly, on the other side, not all senators spoke in favour of Work Choices. Deep down in their heart of hearts there were senators opposite who knew this system was flawed. There were senators opposite who knew that Work Choices would disadvantage those in the community. Sadly, it would disadvantage those who did not have a profession and those who were not tradespeople. Women were affected by this and so were those who had English as a second language. But the worst part about the advent of Work Choices—after the 1,620 pages of explanatory memoranda and legislation—was the $121 million of taxpayers money that was spent. The amount of $121 million rolls off the tongue very easily. God help us! I know what we could do with $121 million if we put it into hospitals, dental care, child care or police stations. It cost $121 million to tell the people of Australia what a great thing Work Choices was. The rest is all history, but we will never get back that $121 million. That will not be rightfully returned to the taxpayers of Australia.

I am one of the first people to stand up and say that change is not necessarily harmful. Change can be good and we must always change and be evolutionary, whether it is in industrial relations or anything else we do. In my journeys as a Transport Workers Union official, as a truck driver, I met some fantastic employers. Make no mistake: I met some very, very genuine people. They were people who got up in the morning and worked damn hard. They put their family homes on the line to build their business. They put their family homes on the line and they lost hours with their children and their spouses. They worked seven days a week to create a business and a better future for their children. By the same token, they also gave employees an opportunity to share in that common wealth or that prosperity. As a TWU organiser, I always used to say to the employers, ‘I really want your business to be successful, because I want your employees, who chose to be members of my union, to share in that.’ Over the years we have seen an array of employers—and I say ‘employers’—who were unfairly treated through the advent of Work Choices. We knew the rule book was thrown out with Work Choices. We knew that decency and fairness could be consigned to the scrap heap if there were unscrupulous employers who would take advantage of that shocking legislation.

In my home state of WA it is no secret that the mining industry is a major driver of our economy. Those employed in the mining industry share in that productivity and that prosperity. I would be the first one to admit that those on Australian workplace agreements in the mining industry had no reason to feel that they had been shafted. They had no reason to feel that they had been disadvantaged, because they were rewarded—there is no doubt about that. At the same time, there was a host of workers who were not employed in the mining industry—workers in contract cleaning, contract security, hospitality, retail and transport, to name a few—who were, for want of a better word, shafted, because unscrupulous employers had the Work Choices legislation at their hand where they could belt those who did not have the power to negotiate collectively or those whose skills were not in great demand, as they were in mining and construction.

This will not surprise anyone: when the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations toured the country over the past few weeks, we had employer bodies, namely the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the mining and metals industry—surprise, surprise!—who claimed to be representative of all industry. When they were asked whether Work Choices had unfairly disadvantaged a host of their members, because of unscrupulous employers who chose to use it to undermine their competitors, they would not have a bar of it. They said their members supported it or that everyone was in favour of it.

It has been only three years since I first sat in the Senate. It has been three years since I sat in the boardrooms of numerous trucking companies who used to say to me that the worst thing that ever happened was when awards or collective bargaining started breaking down without the true safety nets that could protect not only their employees, their future employees and other road users but also, just as importantly, the truck drivers behind the wheels of those juggernauts. They were undermined. They could be undermined in major contracts, because unscrupulous employers would do the wrong thing. With my hand on my heart, I sincerely hope and pray that they are the minority. But they are out there.

Fortunately, with the election of a Rudd Labor government, we have the chance now of righting the wrongs. We will right the wrongs. Senators opposite who did not oppose the bill—they did not support it, but they did not oppose it; I have heard some mealy-mouthed words over the years, but that was a beauty, an absolute classic—knew in their heart of hearts that there was not the flexibility in every workplace for employers and employees to negotiate, one on one, to improve their lot.

During our inquiries around the country, BGC, a major construction company involved heavily in mining in WA, put a submission to us. We asked BGC what they thought about patent bargaining. The employers all wanted to raise the bogy of the unions who might pattern bargain, because we cannot have a level playing field, and that is fine. When we asked BGC and other employers in the Perth hearings, and employers in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, about the difference between individual and collective workplace agreements that were between the employer and the employee, they all gave the same answer. They all told us very categorically that they were not any different; they were the same agreement. The only difference between them was the expiry date. So one has to ask this question: where is the flexibility? What it really boiled down to was that these agreements were pattern agreements. BGC even confessed—and these are not the precise words of BGC, but they can be checked on the Hansardthat when they interviewed their future employees it was take it or leave it. ‘That is what you will be paid. If you do not like it, find something else.’ Where the heck is flexibility? Where the heck is the individual choice? Where is the ability to improve your lot if you are presented with take it or leave it pattern agreements?

I have listened to some of the input from senators opposite. There has been some very good input from senators opposite. And, my God, there has been some rubbish. They sit there and try to have us believe that the worst thing that Australians could confront is the fear of a worker daring to call his or her union in to negotiate on their behalf when you have major employers who have flouted these laws and owned up and said on Hansard: ‘Yes, we do use these agreements. No, there is no difference; they’re all the same, and it really is take it or leave it.’ Fortunately, a lot of things came out of those hearings.