Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is what he said as a witness before the Senate committee. In other evidence given to the committee, it was said:

We are strongly opposed to unions having the capacity to inspect nonmembers’ records under the bill and propose that nonmembers’ consent be required as a condition of inspection.

That does make it clear. Senator Collins says it is just not true; let us see what amendments come forward to deal with those concerns.

Another issue is compulsory arbitration. Again, it was promised that it would not be introduced in this bill, and yet it is. As Mr Turnbull outlined today, ‘We propose that the ability to arbitrate, if negotiations fail, only be available where the parties genuinely consent to arbitration.’ That seems fair and something that I would strongly support. In terms of Julia Gillard’s commitment, she has said:

Under Labor’s policy there is no automatic arbitration of collective agreements. Our policy clearly states that no one will be forced to sign up to an agreement where they do not agree to the terms.

That was on 30 May 2007. She has also said:

Compulsory arbitration will not be a feature of good faith bargaining.

That was on 17 September 2008, so that is a recent quote. Goodness—why doesn’t she commit to that and why doesn’t Labor commit to that?

The issue of greenfield sites is a concern for all of us on this side and certainly for any business operation setting up. It is a disincentive to major project development and the generation of jobs. The bill currently requires the maker of a greenfield agreement to notify all unions who may have carriage of members at that site that they intend to make a new agreement. What red tape and regulation that is going to invoke. That will be a nightmare for small business and for major business projects about to get underway. That requirement to notify all unions should certainly be removed from the bill.

Finally, on the unfair dismissal issue, as I said earlier the Howard government had to try 44 times to remove the unfair dismissal laws that were introduced under Paul Keating before we succeeded. The Labor government’s proposals for an exemption for small business are inappropriately worded. We know that small business see unfair dismissal laws as a disincentive to employment and creating jobs, but the government has brought them back. The definition of ‘small business’ is also an issue. It has gone from 100 down to 15 employees, and under Labor’s proposal that is a headcount—whether they are part time, full time or casual—not full-time equivalents. That is clearly an issue that needs to be sorted out.

Small businesses are the backbone of our community. They are the job generators and they need protection, support and encouragement to grow and prosper. Whether they are restaurants or caterers, hoteliers, independent retail grocers or retailers themselves—and I commend Tasmanian Independent Retailers, under the leadership of Grant Hinchcliffe, for what they are doing in Tasmania to create jobs, the major multimillion dollar development out near the airport with Statewide Independent Wholesalers; congratulations—florists, petrol station owners, butchers or bakers, whoever they are, they know that this legislation is a disincentive to creating jobs.

The bill will need further scrutiny. The committee stage will see a lot of argument, a lot of argy-bargy. I hope that the government sees sense and asks itself how many jobs this bill will create. I think the government will find that it does not create one job. The government should ask itself why it is the only government in the world that wants to re-regulate the industrial relations system at a time like this, when we have an economic downturn and we need to create jobs and support small business. These are the questions that need to be answered, and I hope they are during further debate on this bill, including the committee stage. I thank the Senate.