Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

We are considering the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009. This bill creates a legislative bridge from the existing industrial relations system, underpinned by the Workplace Relations Act 1996, to Labor’s new system, underpinned by the Fair Work Act 2009. The bill is necessary as some parts of the existing system remain ongoing under the new system. Some parts will remain ongoing for a limited period, which is called the bridging period, and other parts are abolished completely. The attitude that we as a coalition will be taking to this legislation is, I must say, still a matter of some reflection. We understand that the Labor Party, despite having moved 120 amendments to their own legislation in the House of Representatives, are still going to be introducing into this chamber another tranche of three lots of amendments to this legislation. They have asked us to engage in the second reading debate on this legislation without having seen the amendments.

I have a funny feeling—and I might be able to predict—that there will be a requirement for a definition in this legislation along the lines that Senator Fielding negotiated with Ms Gillard in that shameful episode in the Senate where Senator Fielding joined with Labor to pass the Fair Work Bill 2009. That was the occasion when this Senate had unanimously, in the previous third reading debate, buried Work Choices good and thorough, but Ms Gillard and Senator Fielding went back to the grave site, unearthed it, threw in jobs, threw in small business and then covered it over again. That was the effect of the amendments that unfortunately Senator Fielding was able to effect with Labor and the Greens on the last occasion.

The very small deal that Senator Fielding was able to achieve—might I add, at great expense to small business overall—was that the definition of ‘small business’ would be addressed in a transitional sense. As I read the current legislation before us, those definitions have still not been presented to the Senate and to this parliament. So that is one lot of amendments that Labor still have to move. I understand that Labor will have to move some further amendments dealing with the rules of state registered unions, and regulations will need to be allowed for to prescribe how state based unions can become part of the federal system. I would have thought that these matters were well and truly on the agenda, like the definition of small business, which should have been dealt with previously.

It is not often that I would agree with the National Tertiary Education Union, but they have made a sensible submission to us—which I assume the government is willing to accept as well—which is that industrial action and secret ballots which have already taken place before 1 July 2009 should be allowed to continue to clothe with legality industrial action that takes place after 1 July 2009. That seems to me to be a sensible amendment to make to the legislation. I understand that the government is interested in it and, in fairness to everybody, it seems a sensible course of action.

But why is this not in the raft of legislation that is before us? I am holding this legislation here, and it really is a huge amount of legislation. I remember, when Work Choices came in, Senator Wong condemning the amount of paperwork involved in relation to that legislation. For consistency’s sake, I trust that Senator Wong will have a look at the Fair Work Australia Bill and the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 and tell us if there is more paperwork involved in the approach that the current government is taking to industrial relations. I dare say we all know what the answer will be to that challenge: she will not take it up, because she already knows the answer. Can I, in general terms, indicate that we the coalition, despite not being provided with all the information, are minded to be supportive of this legislation and will be supportive of the three areas of amendment that I have been able to identify as clearly the government’s responsibility. Can I flag, however, that in the committee stage I will be moving, on behalf of the coalition, nine amendments dealing with a range of issues but concerned with protecting small businesses in particular. We said in relation to the Fair Work Australia Bill—and I say on behalf of the coalition yet again in relation to this transition legislation—that jobs, small business and excessive union power are the three criteria on which we will judge the legislation. Once again small businesses will be hard-hit if some of the amendments that we are seeking are not made.

Can I point out in particular the huge cost to business in relation to the issue of award modernisation. Reality has finally mugged Ms Gillard in relation to restaurants and catering. She has now advised the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, I understand, that there are certain factors—in fact she wrote to the Hon. Justice Giudice on 29 May 2009—indicating that data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that cafes, restaurants and catering services are characterised by comparatively low profit margins and high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses. That, of course, is part of her rationalisation for doing a backflip for restaurants and caterers. It is a welcome backflip, but we are not sure that it is actually going to pay dividends. But if that is the rationale, the consideration, that Ms Gillard has applied in relation to restaurants and caterers—namely, that the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that cafes, restaurants and catering services are characterised by comparatively low profit margins and high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses—I would invite Ms Gillard to put on a pair of gumboots—and it is raining in some areas of rural and regional Australia, thank goodness—and visit some of the horticultural pursuits, like the ones in my home state of Tasmania; for example, the stone fruit industry and the berry fruit industry.

In these industries the fruit has to be picked not on the day that Ms Gillard determines but on the day that nature or God determines. We know that Ms Gillard has delusions of grandeur, but can I say to her and to those who are so busily pushing this nonsensical one-size-fits-all approach to industrial relations: if you put a 30 per cent weighting on the cost of picking fruit on a Saturday or Sunday, it will no longer be viable for those businesses to pick fruit on those days and, as a result, market supplies will be adversely impacted. Fruit that starts rotting will impact on unripened fruit and the consequences will be huge. The consequences will be substantial. Knowing some of the berry farmers and stone fruit farmers as I do, I know that they fit into the category that Ms Gillard told Justice Giudice about on 29 May 2009—that is, they are ‘characterised by comparatively low profit margins and high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses’.

In fairness, the pharmacy sector might be seen—and I note that I am wearing their tie today, albeit by coincidence—to be a bit more profitable than other sectors. Interestingly enough, with award modernisation they too will be severely impacted. But do you know who will really be impacted? It will not be the pharmacists; it will be the students and casual workers. You see, a lot of the pharmacists engage university students to do those pill packets that are done up especially for aged-care facilities, where older people are provided with a morning, noon and night schedule of tablets for the day of the week. This is all set out for them and delivered once a week. You need careful workers to do that. I know pharmacies that employ university students and that say, ‘We don’t care when you do it, as long as they are ready for delivery Monday morning.’ Most university students say, ‘We study, have lectures, tutorials et cetera nine to five, Monday to Friday, so can we work Saturday and Sunday?’ It suits the students, it suits the pharmacies and it gets the job done. But all of a sudden there will be a cost impost for students to work on a Saturday and Sunday, which will price them out of the market.

So who are the people who are going to suffer? Not the pharmacists; I am sure they will get around it. It will be the university students, who of course are already being attacked by this government through their attempts to get rid of the opportunity of a gap year. But these are the real on-the-ground impacts of this Labor government’s legislation. If you are a pharmacist you are not exempt. If you are a farmer or a horticulturist you are not exempt. If you are a restaurant caterer you are not exempt. Senator Arbib, in a most undistinguished first question time today, when asked about what was unique about restaurants and caterers as opposed to all these other areas, was unable to give an answer.