Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like Senator Boyce I had the opportunity to participate in the committee hearings examining the Fair Work Bill 2008. I went to almost all of the hearings around the country, and it became particularly apparent that this bill represents nothing less than an attack on jobs. Senator Boyce referred to how employers in recent times would be out of their mind to remove employees, because it was actually hard to find replacements. Sadly, it appears that under this Labor government that is not the same problem that it once was. This Orwellian-titled Fair Work Bill should actually be called the ‘ACTU Thank You Bill’ or the ‘Union Return-the-Favour Bill’ because what this bill represents is an attempt to use the force of law to breathe life into a movement that is dying of irrelevance, with roughly one in six private sector workers being a member of a trade union. This represents an attempt by the ALP to put their paymasters back in the box seat and to effectively coerce members of the Australian workforce into once again being supporters of the trade union movement. Importantly, as Senator Boyce and other speakers on this side have outlined, the bill does not enact what Labor promised before the election. That is clear. It goes a lot further. I will mention a few of those examples this morning.

Firstly, with respect to right of entry, this bill goes substantially further than was promised by the Labor Party before the last election. As has been outlined in the committee report, in a speech delivered in April 2008 the minister stated:

… the current rules in relation to right of entry will remain. With the right to enter another’s workplace comes the responsibility to ensure that it is done only in accordance with the law.

And another example:

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.

What happened in the committee hearing is that the department itself conceded:

The bill removes the existing requirement for a union to be bound to an award or agreement applying in the workplace as a condition of entry.

That is a substantial change from the law as it existed several years ago. When it comes to accessing employees’ records, the coalition firmly believes that those records should only be accessed, as we outlined yesterday, if they relate to members of unions or people who give their permission or where a tribunal orders such access. It should not be as of right for a trade union. The bottom line here is that, if the Commonwealth Bank cannot get access to those records, why on earth should the CFMEU be able to? That is a major inconsistency in this bill and it is a substantial change from previous law.

Secondly, we have transmission of business. Hidden away in the back of this bill and retitled ‘Transfer of business’ this represents a fundamental change to settled law that has over decades gone right to the High Court of Australia. It represents an attack on the settled law to the extent that we heard evidence that it will directly cost jobs. It changes what was an asset test and a test based on business character to a transfer of work. We heard from the Australian Industry Group unequivocally that the provisions are anti-employment and would create a huge incentive for companies not to employ workers of businesses they take over. I cannot think of a worse measure to introduce in the current economic environment than to actually provide a disincentive for companies to take on employees of businesses that are taken over or that otherwise change hands through contracting arrangements. For the party that talks about the need for an independent umpire: there is an independent umpire in the High Court of Australia. It has settled this law over and over again. In essence, what this bill does, when the unions have not been able to get their case up through the courts and tribunals of Australia, is say, ‘We’ll change the rules.’ For the party that talks about an independent umpire, that represents a spit in its face. What it does is say, ‘We are just going to change what the umpire said.’

Thirdly, we have compulsory arbitration. We heard that there would be no compulsory arbitration. It was not vague; it was explicit. We were told that people would not be forced to sign or adopt agreements to which they did not concede. This bill does not do that. This bill allows Fair Work Australia to make orders to force people into agreements that they otherwise do not concede to, and that represents a retrograde step. Through that provision and others this bill will cost jobs.

We hear much confected, contrived outrage from the Prime Minister and the government, but it is nothing more than spin. We hear more about the previous government’s policies than we do about the detail and impact of their own—they do not want to discuss them, they do not want to defend them and they do not want to be held to them. The coalition will do just that. Unlike our opponents, we will not stand in the way of the electorate—and that has been made clear—but we will hold the government to account and we will hold them to that which they promised in their policy.

The ultimate test of this legislation is: does it create jobs? Does it support job creation? While the previous government oversaw the creation of two million jobs, this government will oversee job destruction—as we heard in evidence to the committee. Quite frankly, that is consistent with the history of the labour movement in this country, who have never cared about unemployed people. Over many years they have sought to hold conditions at the expense of jobs. I recall an example from my youth, when the then Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council went to the Shepparton Preserving Company in the last recession that Labor oversaw in this country—which hit particularly hard in my home state of Victoria. Rather than allow the workers at SPC, as it was, to voluntarily alter their conditions, in came the Victorian Trades Hall Council. With state government support, it actually prohibited them from changing their working conditions to keep their jobs through what was then the worst recession since World War II. That shows the intent of the labour movement, and that is actually reflected in this bill.

Senator Farrell last night specifically spoke about trolley collectors and how the SDA had apparently saved trolley collectors, which I found interesting. I was once a trolley boy. I spent several years at high school and university as a trolley boy, and when I was not a trolley boy I was a freezer boy at the local Safeway or independent supermarket. Do you know what the SDA did for me? The SDA ensured, because it did not like youth wages, that when one turns 21 one had to graduate to adult wages. The SDA made sure that everyone lost their job when they reached 21. The day I turned 21, up went my pay rate and the supermarkets all said, ‘Thank you very much.’ I was only a casual. All the SDA represented was a notice board in the tea room or lunch room of a supermarket. I never saw nor heard from them. When I turned 21, I lost my job. I lost my job because of the unions not allowing flexibility in the workplace. I had no say in that; I had to go and find something else. Maybe some 15- or 16-year-old kid got the job. But how on earth is that job growth? That does not represent job growth. That goes to show what the labour movement has been about: protecting conditions of existing employed people at the expense of those who have no job. And that is exactly what is being undertaken in this bill.

This government says one thing and does another. It says that this bill represents a forward step. The department admitted in the first committee hearing here in Canberra a fact that was very interesting. This bill removes a right of employers that was granted by the Laurie Brereton act of 1993. In 1993, both unions and employers were given the right to take protected industrial action. Under this bill, the right of employers to do so is limited. It is limited so it can only be done in a reactive sense. This bill does not just take us back beyond the Workplace Relations Act 1996; it takes us back beyond 1993. That is another example of how, despite the government using the word ‘fair’ over and over again, as currently constructed the bill is simply not fair.

The bill uses award modernisation as the excuse to govern the union right of entry rules. The unions get to define when they are eligible to go into a workplace. One day, you could have the AWU knocking on the door; the next day, you could have the AMWU; and on a really bad week you might get the CFMEU. The unions can change their own rules to determine which workplaces they cover. That is a not a recipe for industrial peace, that is not a recipe for cooperation in the workplace and it is not a recipe for jobs.

This morning when I was preparing my speech, my attention was brought to the Forward with Fairness document, dated April 2007. The interesting thing is that if one searches through this document, apart from a very obscure reference to trying to promote economic growth and the future economic prosperity of our nation, there is nothing about promoting jobs. There is no promise here that this will deliver economic growth and 10, 20 or 50 thousand jobs—or maybe even two million jobs, like the previous government did. There is nothing in here about a test that will define the success of this policy by whether people keep or get jobs. That goes to show just how far removed from economic reality this government is. It simply does not understand that in changing economic circumstances, whether they are good or not so good, having flexible employment arrangements and ensuring workplace cooperation is the best way to ensure employment growth. It was not a Liberal, I believe, who said that fairness starts with a job; I think that was former British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. This policy fails that most basic test.

We often hear from people a sentiment, with which I disagree, about our horse and buggy Constitution. This is a horse and buggy industrial relations policy. It is a throwback. As we have seen, it goes back beyond the 1996 Workplace Relations Act in so many ways, which the government will not admit. It goes back even beyond the Laurie Brereton Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993. The Australian people will not fall for the sort of Peter Mandelson-New Labour inspired spin and newspeak of this government. Just by putting ‘fair’ in front of something does not make it so. It will not work. This bill represents overreach from this government. The scoreboard of jobs growth will be the test against which it fails. Taking a modern application of George Orwell, this government’s slogan might well be that unemployment means jobs, unfair is fair and some workers—some jobs—are more equal than others.

The amendments that the coalition will move to the provisions of this bill will strengthen its ability to support jobs growth. The test for this place has to be: are we putting anyone out of work? If there is a single provision in this bill that will cost someone in Australia their job, that will affect a family. They could lose their home. That is something which we should eternally oppose.