Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I'm going to take issue with what the previous speaker has just said, because Australia cannot afford a backward step into the past. Anybody who lived through the 1970s and the 1980s would remember that there was no risk of an economy-wide shut down; there was action taken in support of economy-wide shutdowns! It would appear that this is something that is missed by so many on the other side. Without a doubt, the deal that has been done between the Albanese Labor government and the ACTU well and truly shows that under Mr Albanese as Prime Minister of Australia the Australian Labor Party are beholden—nothing more and nothing less—to the union movement.

But what is worse is that they are actually paying back their paymaster. When you look at the threat of damaging industrial action—and that is what this is designed to do—the Albanese Government is about to deliver that in full to Australians. Anybody who understands the history of the industrial relations act would understand that this type of behaviour was actually ruled out and made illegal by the former Keating government. In fact, even former Labor prime ministers—former Prime Minister Rudd and former Prime Minister Gillard—recognised the need to ensure that this type of behaviour did not return. They were pressed on the ACTU at the time, they were pressed by the union movement, but they stood their ground. They stood their ground and they refused to capitulate. Why? Because they understood that the last thing that Australia needed under their Labor governments was a return to the dark old days of economy wide shutdowns.

Again, what is conveniently missed by those opposite in this debate is that under Labor's Fair Work Act—the Fair Work Act that was put together under the former Rudd and Gillard governments—multiemployer bargaining is actually allowed. Two employers can get together, if they want, and they can bargain for an enterprise agreement. What they also forget to tell the Australian people is that under Labor's Fair Work Act—which they are now saying is just not working, and they certainly didn't say that the last time they were in government—there is also a low-paid bargaining stream. Again, what that does is permit multiemployer bargaining for low-paid workers. So, despite everything that those opposite are saying, Labor's Fair Work Act, as it currently stands—the act that they designed—already allows multiemployer bargaining, and already allows multiemployer bargaining for low-paid workers. In fact, when you look at why, under the former Labor government, this was actually inserted, the stream was designed for sectors such as aged-care and community services—the very sectors that the ACTU constantly refers to in arguing for an industry bargaining system.

So you do need to ask yourself: if Labor's Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Act that was put in place by the former Labor government, at this point in time currently allows for multiemployer bargaining but also has the ability for employees to get together in terms of the low-paid bargaining stream, why is Labor making announcements with the ACTU that they would like to introduce multiemployer bargaining? Because we know that under the current streams you can't take strike action. So the only change that Labor are putting forward under the guise of allowing this type of bargaining, because it is already allowed under the Fair Work Act, is to acquiesce to their paymasters, the Australian union movement, and to allow industrial action, economy-wide shutdowns, under the Albanese government.

Those who lived through the dark old days of the 1970s and 1980s will recall that, during those periods of time, industrial action was actually unlawful, but that did not stop people. You had general strikes, you had airline strikes, you had public transport strikes, you had beer strikes, you had waterfront strikes and you also had retail strikes. When Mr Albanese says that he would like to deliver full employment, real wage increases and productivity gains, and that that is what the summit is going to deliver, Blind Freddie could tell you that full employment, real wage increases and productivity gains are not going to be realised if the Albanese government legislates the ACTU's demands for sector-wide bargaining.

You will also be able to have sympathy strikes. You can actually have all sorts of workplaces that have no relationship whatsoever with those who are seeking to go out on strike also able to go on strike. You could have workers in New South Wales taking industrial action, and workers in my home city of Perth would be able to go on strike in support of them. Tell me: when a business is forced to close because its workers are on strike, how does that deliver full employment? How does that deliver real wage increases? How does that deliver productivity gains? Ultimately, that is what Mr Albanese said the summit would deliver, and yet all we have seen so far is a talkfest, a glorified networking event, and then some window-dressing for decisions that, by and large, have already been made by the Albanese government to appease their union paymasters.

On that note, it is a fact that unions currently represent less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce. Yet when you look at how many of them were invited to the summit, they had around 33 seats at the summit table. Small businesses, on any analysis, represent the backbone of the Australian economy, are well and truly the job makers of our economy and represent 41 per cent of our workforce. But Australians might be interested to know they had one seat at the table. Despite all of the rhetoric that we are hearing from Prime Minister Albanese—'I'm pro worker, I'm pro employer'—small businesses, representing 41 per cent of our workforce, had one seat at the summit, and unions, who represent less than 10 per cent of the private sector workforce, had over 25 per cent of the seats at the summit.

In life, it's a very simple equation: a business that has to close employs no-one. That is what we are going to see if and when Labor go down the path of legislating the ACTU's demands of industry-wide bargaining. Imagine the impact that strikes will have on supply chains. Supply chains under the Albanese government will be absolutely crushed. What happens when you destroy a supply chain? It leads to instability in workplaces. When you have instability in workplaces, what do you end up with? Higher unemployment, less profitability within businesses and a negative impact all over the Australian economy.

What are families and businesses looking for from the Albanese government? They're actually looking for a plan to address the rising cost of living. And yet what they have been given by the Albanese government? A government that is showing it's actually not interested in addressing the rising cost of living. Even after 100 days, we still have not seen anything concrete put forward that would do just that. But what we have seen is that it is more than happy to capitulate to and entertain outrageous demands from the ACTU. And as I said: general strikes, airline strikes, public transport strikes, beer strikes, waterfront strikes and retail strikes—that is what this government is going to deliver to the Australian people. That is not a plan to address the cost of living.