Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation (Senator Abetz) to questions without notice asked today relating to changes to industrial relations.

Mr Deputy President, if you were to read any of the daily press from the last 12 months on the topics of industrial policies, industrial relations or labour law reform, you would be clearly aware of one thing—that there is a gaping chasm emerging in this country as to how labour relations and industrial relations in the workplace should be regulated.

One side of this parliament, one side of this chamber, is clearly committed to growth; productivity improvement; reforms that guarantee wealth creation and institutional reform that achieves that end; giving reward for effort; reward for hard work; and, most importantly of all, achieving and maintaining equity and fairness in the workplace. The other side of the debate, the other side of the chamber, is committed to the creation and continuation of class conflict and industrial warfare; the creation of productivity decline; institutional conflict and inertia; reward only via exploitation and harm; the spreading of hatred, violence and restrictions on lawful activities; and, most importantly of all, the denial of basic human rights in our workplaces.

The latter scenario that I outlined is the policy of the current government—of the coalition parties. In their haste and desire to revert and return to the 1890s, as they bring laws of change into this place, they seek to deliberately avoid their responsibilities as we go into the first quarter century of the 21st century. Their system, recently passed, is designed around the creation of an expensive, huge and bureaucratic set of regulations. They seek to restrict the ability of workers and managers to engage in discussions and negotiations on issues of their own choice. They pass reams and reams, pages and pages, of activities that employers, trade unions and workers may not engage in under the heading of ‘Prohibited content’. They seek to continually deny any semblance of rights and are gleefully proud of their achievement. They deny any sense of responsibility and they continue to deny any concept of rights, protections or interests.

The other side, this side of the chamber, are committed to an alternate scenario—a scenario that is truly progressive in terms of labour market reform in this country, a policy of those who care about and love their country, a policy of vision for the next 50 years—not a return to the archaic days of the last 120 years—and a policy about reward, success, achievement, productivity, production and helping and assisting those in need. That is the policy of the Australian Labor movement.

We saw it today spelt out in headlines in the Australian Financial Review: a way forward, a clear vision and a brief set of clearly spelt out and easily understood principles, having regard for the open trading nature of the Australian economy, and having particular regard for fundamental rights of workers in the workplace; the creation of an effective safety net protection against unfair, unlawful, illegal and harsh treatment in the workplace; the right, for those who choose so, to collectively bargain; the right for those who want it to have active union representation in the workplace; and, most importantly of all, access to an independent umpire to set minimum wages and an appropriate safety net— (Time expired)

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to Senator Bishop and I thought he was speaking about the coalition policy. Senator Bishop is someone closely associated with the Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia, which, incidentally, enjoys the dubious honour of being the most strikebound state of all the states and territories of Australia.

Senator Bishop is a product of the Trades and Labor Council. His was a strange speech when one considers, say, that the trade union movement in Western Australia is the most militant and the most dictatorial. It almost seems as if the Western Australian Trades and Labor Council was schooled by the old Arthur Scargill school of left-wing socialism; it is so steeped in the tradition of the old English system of ‘them and us’. I can think of two prominent trade union leaders in Western Australia: the porcine Kevin Reynolds from the CFMEU and his partner, Joe McDonald, who is not quite the same rotund shape as Mr Reynolds but who has also been in a jolly good paddock with a big deep trough.

This is the sort of thing you have in Western Australia. This is the background and the training that Mr Bishop came from: it does not matter what you tell them; tell them anything as long as they all believe it. Some will believe anything you say, Senator Bishop, but they will not believe the garbage about you being good for Australia. What is good for Australia is the Howard coalition government and the new changes that have been made—those necessary changes that have been made to the economy. You could not argue, for instance, that the economy is not better off; the economy is better off. It is one of the best performing in the OECD. You could not argue that under these workplace reforms no-one is going to lose their job without some sort of reason. That has gone on from time immemorial. It has gone on for the last 100 years under trade union movements in Australia. It is going to go on for the next hundred years.

But let me go back to the Western Australian trade union movement and the CFMEU there. They are wreaking havoc upon the Labor government. They are biting the hand that feeds them in Western Australia. I do not know how Mr Alan Carpenter, the new Premier, whom I have known for some years—in fact, I worked with him in the Western Australian parliament as well—can handle the job he has. I suppose he will; he is quite clever. He is not a bad profile for a Labor Party person these days. But he has 400 workers who are doing crucial work on the new railway there—working on the tunnel that is going through the CBD in the fair city of Perth—who are subject only to the orders of the shop steward. When it gets a little hot the shop steward says, ‘Go home.’ It is not the foreman or the contractors on the job but the shop steward who says to go home. And then they go off for two weeks. How can an economy survive things like that?

How can the opposition survive in this place, coming from the trade union movement as it does and steeped in the history of ‘them and us’, which does not exist today? This government was elected because the battlers voted for the Prime Minister’s team. You have lost the backing of your people. Not many kids today want to be associated with Labor. Some aspire to be tradesmen. Previously, they supported your movement. Some aspire even to be professionals. But you say, ‘No, we are going to stick with the old, traditional Labor.’ You are always going to lose. There may be a time when you come onto these Treasury benches again, but you are going to eventually lose them because you are political Luddites in every sense of the word. You do not want change. You fear change. What this brave government has done is give Australia change that is going to be good for the future. Every person in Australia today on average is worth $300,000, right across the board. That is a heck of a lot better than the biggest socialist country in the world, China, where their wages are $5,000 a year. Is that what you want? Is that what Australia wants to go back to? Do we want to go back to a system that is retrograde? Do we want to go back to a system that puts your people in penury for the rest of their lives? This is the system. It works very well. And under the new system it is going to work much better than it has in the past.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not surprised that Senator Lightfoot did not address any significant part of the Work Choices legislation or the intended or unintended consequences of this legislation. He, I suspect, like most people over there, is ignorant of the consequences. We heard the fanfare that accompanied the introduction and implementation of the Work Choices legislation on Monday. We heard over the last several months all the claims about one particular aspect of the Work Choices legislation—that is, the removal of the unfair dismissal laws. In fact, in Senate estimates Senator Abetz on the public record claimed that with the introduction of Work Choices and the consequential removal of unfair dismissal laws there would be an increase in employment of 78,000 overnight—the day after the introduction of Work Choices, 78,000, he said.

You can imagine my surprise when I woke up on Tuesday morning and read the papers. I expected to see headlines about an increase of 78,000 jobs. Of course, if it had happened the government would know. In the same Senate estimates hearing when Senator Abetz made those claims, the department was asked whether they had mechanisms and tools in place to capture that sudden jobs growth overnight. They assured us that they did, and I am sure that if there was such a jobs growth they would have passed that on to the government. They would have made that available to the press.

But there was no massive jobs growth and no overnight increase with the removal of unfair dismissals. Instead, we saw stories about workers being sacked. We saw headlines about workers being sacked and then offered casual jobs on lower rates and lesser conditions. We saw stories about workers sacked and replaced by workers that were employed the week before. We saw stories about workers being sacked for being too old. We saw stories about workers being sacked for being injured—injuries that occurred in the very workplace they were subsequently sacked from. We saw workers being sacked for simply being sick.

A case was brought to my attention this morning of a worker who was sick on Monday and Tuesday of this week—Monday was the introduction of Work Choices—and had a medical certificate. He advised his employer that he was unable to attend work for two days, that he had been to the doctor and that was on doctor’s advice. When he arrived at work today, he was told he had been dismissed. When he asked why his employment had been terminated, he was not given a reason and was then informed that no reason is required to be given. That is true. Under the present regime that is in place, there is no requirement to give a reason why you want to sack someone. In fact, it does not matter because there is no unfair dismissal protection whatsoever—unless in those very limited circumstances of discrimination—and there is no practical redress against unlawful termination either.

When we went through the Senate inquiry into the Work Choices bill, we explored this issue and, much to my amazement again, Senators Barnett and Troeth tried to defend the government’s position and said that workers would not be unfairly sacked. When Professor Peetz presented to the committee and gave an example of a worker potentially being sacked for simply chewing gum, the government senators said that was clearly untrue. We had Senator Barnett come into this place and say that Professor Peetz was wrong and that Senator Marshall had misrepresented the position of the department, but the department has confirmed that this is the case. Who else recently confirmed that it is the case? The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations himself.

The minister indicated quite openly and frankly on Lateline that there is no reason, apart from those narrow unlawful reasons, for a worker unfairly being sacked. You can sack people unfairly in this country under this regime. You can sack them because you do not like them. You can sack them because you might be in a bad mood that day. You can sack them for chewing gum. You can sack them simply because you want to sack them and replace them with other workers or, as we know—and the examples are coming out—you can sack them in order to replace them with people on lesser wages and conditions. You can sack them, as we know is the case and has been widely reported in the press, and then offer them the exact same job back on less wages and lesser conditions.

What response did we get when we explored these things and put them on the public record? The government attacked Professor Peetz personally. They deny that this is the intended consequences of their bill. The fact that you can sack someone unfairly also makes an absolute mockery— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers of Minister Abetz. A negative picture has just been portrayed by the opposition of the situation that now arises in the workplace in Australia. Let me explain, as Senator Lightfoot did, with some of my real-life experiences as an employer. Every employer in this country wants the best out of any workforce. With any workforce you employ, you want the best. That includes harmony within the workplace. It includes productivity issues. It includes happiness. Modern employers realise that you need to have a happy and congenial workplace for productivity.

Employers are not going to disrupt a system where productivity is paramount and where harmonious relationships need to be constantly in place. Let us look at the positives, not the negatives. It is very easy to come in here and be negative about any situation. By and large, employers are going to want the best that is possible out of any situation, any employment contract and any employment base. I would like to think that employers listening to this broadcast, if they have time to do so, would understand that this is a government that is very concerned about moving Australia forward.

We would be criticised strongly if we did not pursue the best interests of this nation as a whole. Part of the reason for our strong economy, for us moving forward and for the whole direction of this government is to have reform constantly. You cannot sit back; you cannot stay in one place forever and a day and say: ‘This has been working well since the early 1900s. Let’s keep it going at that same pace.’ We have built into the new industrial relations reforms things that are going to take this country forward. Senators opposite mentioned that that was what they wanted to do. In particular, I quite rightly agree with my colleague Senator Lightfoot, that it sounded as though Senator Bishop was talking about our policies when he was trying to elicit information or suggest that the Labor Party cares for workers well into the future. We do. It is quite evident that we do. The legislation speaks for itself on how we do it.

Senator Marshall asked Senator Lightfoot as he was leaving: ‘Why didn’t you speak about the legislation?’ I will talk about some of the benefits of the legislation. I will highlight them so that they are on the public record once again. The regulations are really here to protect us. Certainly, the regulations are going to highlight some of the issues that need to be dealt with. One of the issues is that the minister may intervene at any time in proceedings before the AIRC. That was under the old system. Now this power of intervention is going to be replicated in sections 102 and 103 of the Workplace Relations Act. It has been necessary to fix up some of these provisions.

Another claim about the provision of information to the minister was that the regulations provided for the AIRC, together with the OEA, to provide certain information to the minister. This is essentially a replication of provisions that applied under the old system. For example, under the old system, the president of the AIRC was required to provide the minister with detailed information. This included information on industrial action and disputes.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The benefits?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. Everything is a benefit under the new system. The Work Choices legislation and regulations represent the unwinding of 100 years of complex, confusing and overlapping legislation which has been unnecessary for a long period of time. It was also suggested earlier by senators opposite that we introduced this legislation in a rushed manner. This legislation was well thought out over a long period of time. It has taken a long time to develop the best system to move Australia forward. We will find as time marches on that this government will be credited for improving the situation within the workplace and making greater workplaces in this country. But, more importantly, it is taking us forward in a more productive way and is creating more employment opportunities. I note that the Labor Party indicated that there are now 70,000 more people wanting to join the unions. What they failed to say is that that represents— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.