Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the opposition supports these amendments. These amendments, I think, are sensible amendments because what they do is take out many of the very bad aspects of this bill that was brought here by the coalition. These amendments to the bill will provide some semblance of decency to the industrial relations position of those opposite. It is a problem still that there are other aspects of this bill that will need to be looked at but these amendments from the crossbenchers are amendments that I think will go some way to help deal with the issues that workers will be faced with.

I would still call on the crossbenchers to understand that doing some good things on one aspect of the bill and then capitulating on other bad aspects of the bill is a problem. This is not about whether there is an argument for these issues. You have always got to look at the bill in its overall context and, even though this is a positive position that has been adopted, there will be a problem further down the track in other aspects of this bill that should be dealt with by rejection because this guts a big part of this bill. That is the reality. It takes away some of the worst aspects of the bill but it does not deal with all of the bad aspects and certainly that is a problem we will need to look at down the track.

The government's position is consistent with what this government has always been about—trying to diminish workers' capacity to come together to collectively bargain. Every opportunity those opposite get, they attack workers' rights and that has been clear from the various pieces of legislation that have been brought into this parliament over the period of the Abbott-Turnbull government. Nothing has changed except that we have now got a publicly declared Thatcherite, sorry, two publicly declared Thatcherites—I forgot Senator Leyonhelm; I should try and remember him now and again—supporting these attacks on workers.

These amendments certainly do make a bad position a little bit better but they do not deal with other aspects that this government will bring in in the future. There is no doubt that, once you start making concessions to this mob over here on industrial relations issues, you are going to be faced with even more attacks on workers' rights. And if the crossbenchers are simply going to capitulate to the attacks on workers' rights then there is no use agreeing to some good things and then agreeing to some really bad things.

I think we need to take this in the context that this is a good approach. We welcome it, we support it but we think more needs to be done on this bill. We are appealing to the crossbenchers. Even though you have agreed to these amendments that make things better for workers, by agreeing to the other aspects of this bill, you are going to gut the principle of collective bargaining in this country. You are going to minimise the capacity for unions to negotiate effectively on the behalf of employees. When you do one good thing, my call would be to do two good things and make sure that the other aspects of the bill are dealt with as constructively as you are dealing with this part of the bill and do not capitulate to the arguments that the coalition are putting up on issues such as greenfields bargaining. Do not capitulate on that. Take the stand that you have taken so far and that stand is one of, I think, some principle. You have taken a stand that deals with a range of problem areas in the bill but you have missed one of the big areas and that is the issue. Do not just go for one small part; go for other aspects of this bill as well.

Abolishing safeguards on individual flexibility agreements that the coalition wanted to undertake was a bad move and I am glad that that has been dealt with. Changes to the National Employment Standards to restrict payment of accrued annual leave entitlements on termination is a bad proposition and I am glad the crossbenchers are dealing with that. The introduction of new provisions that override state laws to permit employees to accrue and take various forms of leave whilst in receipt of workers' compensation is an important issue. Changes to the transfer of business provisions to reduce entitlements for workers should not be there. Why should we be agreeing to these things? And we should ensure that the longstanding fundamental right to take industrial action to improve conditions and terms of employment when an employer refuses to engage in collective bargaining is enshrined. I am worried that even though the crossbenchers have made good steps in this area that they are really going to miss out on one of the key issues of a worker's right to collectively bargain.

Undermining employees' rights to representation by restricting union right of entry for the purposes of discussion with employees is a Thatcherite approach if ever there was one It is good that that is gone. But, if you remove the fundamental right to bargain—as I think is going to happen down the track—many of these things, no matter how good they are, will be weighed up against the bad aspects of this bill, which people look like they are ready to agree to.

So I take the view that we really need to give a lot of consideration to other aspects of the bill. Labor agrees with the propositions that are being put forward in this range of amendments. We support them. Certainly, we may come back into this debate further down the track. We support these amendments as they are put, but we would also ask people to consider them in the overall context of how effective they will be if you start removing the fundamental right to collective bargaining.