Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first thing I would like to say is to any of my children who are still awake: would you please go to bed; it is way past your bedtime. As to the other matter, I think this has been a fascinating day. There were great threats today from the Labor Party about their charge against Work Choices after its first 12 months—and it has fizzled out in six hours. Where are they lined up tonight to attack this ogre? It has gone. I rather suspect that the reason this has happened is that the Australian Labor Party are now in the mode of having what I would call hit-and-run attacks on various government policies. I am afraid that is a fair indication of where the Labor Party are at. Indeed, the fact that this chamber is not filled in the adjournment debate tonight with people talking about Work Choices is an example of this utterly duplicitous behaviour of the Australian Labor Party.

I want to talk about the things that I think are really important to the Australian community. Clearly, what we have seen over the last 12 months is a partnership that the Labor Party will simply not acknowledge. It is a partnership between employers and employees. The trouble with the Australian Labor Party is that they hate employers. They have always hated employers and they have done everything possible to make sure there is a divide between employees and employers. What the last 12 months has shown quite clearly is that it is a partnership based on mutual respect and trust. When the shackles were lifted from that relationship between employees and employers, guess what happened: we started to see the very thing we told you would happen. When the yoke of the unfair dismissal laws was lifted from employers, small business employers in particular, what happened? They started delivering more jobs.

But what are you saying to the small business community? You are going to wind it back. You talk about a change from the member for Brand to the present Leader of the Opposition. But this man is a greater wind-back expert than Kim Beazley ever was, and you will wind back that relationship to the detriment of one group of people only: the working men and women of Australia. They are the group that will suffer from your wind-back. They are the group who have benefited most from the changes we made 12 months ago, changes not based on any philosophical view about a relationship between employees and employers but on an understanding—which you will never have and you have never had—that the absolute fundamental relationship for the development of this country is between employers and employees. Until you recognise that—

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take my lead from the President. You are not going to be President, and I will take my lead from the President. Until the Australian Labor Party appreciates the fact that you have completely destroyed that relationship over 15 years, then you will not be suitable for government. I think the very interesting part of what we have seen over the last 12 months—if not the last 15 years, and this is what the Australian people will finally put two and two together on—is the union movement, through the ACTU, acknowledging the fact that they must admit defeat in relation to their level of influence outside this place. I come to what that has now meant. I like Senator George Campbell, but I am going to mention in a second a name that he does not particularly like, so I apologise for that because I do like Senator Campbell and I would like to see him back here. The person who wants his job is another example of what we are seeing. The trade union movement now has under 20 per cent coverage of the private sector, and it is under 30 per cent for the public sector. What has happened is that we have seen the union bosses make the decision that their level of influence outside parliament has completely gone, so you will now see a massive shift from outside into this place because the only way the trade union movement can retain its power in this country is to make sure that it runs the Australian Labor Party both here and in the other place. I do not need to go through the names of those that have been so articulately mentioned tonight by others.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go on!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I will. That is very generous of you. It must be because of the late hour that I have actually been invited to submit these matters. If you look at the Doug Camerons and the Bill Shortens of this world—I am just keeping a very close eye on Senator George Campbell; he is getting far too close for comfort—you are seeing a rapid movement out of the trade union movement into the—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name 30!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are the people coming in. So there are 30 more coming in, are there? I have just had an admission that there are 30 more trade union people coming in after the next election. I did not think it was as many as that, but I thank you most sincerely, Senator Crossin, for indicating to the chamber that there are another 30 trade union people coming in. I am a bit gobsmacked about that.

We are seeing movement from a now irrelevant ACTU, with minimal coverage in the Australian workforce, into here. The Australian people are going to be left with a very clear choice in about eight months time as to whether they are prepared to trust the invasion of the ACTU into this place and the other place. I think they will vote with their feet. For those of you in the Labor Party who are not as manic or high profile as some of those coming in, I think you should be extremely nervous because, quite frankly, your chances of promotion—those of you who are still here—will be absolutely minimal. And when Doug Cameron takes over from this man, Senator George Campbell, do you think, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells said, he will come in here expecting to sit on the back bench for six years? I do not think so. You know as well as I do, through you, Mr President, that those trade union leaders will come in here and will be running the ALP within 12 months. I enjoy Senator Forshaw’s company, but he was almost apologising tonight for his trade union roots.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he wasn’t!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening intently to him, and he was apologising for his trade union roots and saying, ‘We should not be bringing to the attention of the Australian people the fact that the ALP within 12 months will be totally dominated by the former ACTU leadership.’

Before I was so rudely interrupted by the clock this afternoon during taking note of answers, where I thought that five minutes was not nearly long enough, I was in the process of going through an article in the Australian today. Unfortunately, I have left myself very little time again to go through this article. I am very pleased that other opportunities will present themselves before the break. I might leave my reference to that very good article, which is about what has happened over the last 12 months, to another day. In finishing, the greatest threat to this country is the influx of these former union leaders into the Labor Party. The greatest risk for the Australian Labor Party is that the Australian community will quite rightly view this as a shift from outside to inside and will vote accordingly. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ronaldson for that minuscule contribution to this debate. I rise to talk about Aboriginal Hostels, but I want to just start by saying that I come from a trade union background and I am damned proud that I do, considering the number of people I assisted in my eight years as a trade union official. I am pretty pleased to have come from that background. That leads me to talk to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and its place in the world of Work Choices.

Aboriginal Hostels was set up in 1973 and has provided temporary accommodation for Indigenous people ever since. AHL currently operates 49 company hostels and funds 71 community hostels in over 100 sites across this country. They provide over 3,000 beds a night in various categories: transient, medical, students living away from home, homeless people and aged care. This accommodation is provided Australia-wide.

Aboriginal Hostels Ltd has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recruitment and career policy. Under this policy Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up some 82 per cent of staff, making it one of the largest single employers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the nation. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd employs nearly 500 people in two categories: predominantly they are either administrative or industrial staff, the latter being, of course, the cooks, cleaners, nightwatchmen and so on—the salt-of-the-earth workers in this country. On its website, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd says it:

... provides the opportunities that improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The company provides an appropriate hostel environment that helps Indigenous people gain access to services like hospitals and schools.

While Aboriginal Hostels Ltd may be helping others, it is at present doing very little to help its own employees, taking a hardline approach and offering workers Australian workplace agreements which diminish their pay and conditions.

Previously, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd has negotiated three collective agreements that have been reached between AHL and their workers. But now in this current round of wage negotiations—if you could in fact call it that—it is offering staff the choice between staying on their existing terms and conditions, on the now expired enterprise bargaining agreement, an agreement which actually expired on 16 December last year, or signing an Australian workplace agreement, which offers a wage increase: 12 per cent over three years. Let us get this really clear as I start this debate—Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is offering to all of its staff, of which 82 per cent are Indigenous people, a choice of staying on their enterprise agreement, which they will not deregister, or taking a wage increase that comes with the requirement that you must sign an AWA—and it also comes at the cost of giving up some conditions, such as maternity leave, and with reduced conditions, such as annual leave.

I sat in my office this evening and listened to Senator Fierravanti-Wells espouse the wonders of Work Choices and AWAs. So I hope she is still around to listen to this contribution. The management of AHL have refused to negotiate a new enterprise bargaining agreement. They are forcing their staff to accept an AWA in order to access a wage increase. AHL will say that they are not forcing staff to sign an AWA at all. No, they are probably not. Staff have a choice to stay under the enterprise agreement that expired on 16 December last year. But if that is the case, they will not be getting a wage increase over the next three years. There is nothing legally stopping them negotiating a new enterprise agreement. It has been a management decision not to do so. This is another great example of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation at work—where workers, in effect, have no real choice at all; where employers can put workers between a rock and hard place. For an organisation that claims to have a caring environment and provide good accommodation and services for its Indigenous clients, they are certainly not showing the same care towards their Indigenous staff.

In estimates in February, when I had very little time to question AHL about their direction, I asked whether in fact they had been directed to do this by the federal government—was there some prescriptive requirement by the federal government to do this. We have seen it in universities, where universities can only accept certain funding on the basis that they offer their employees AWAs. Let us bear in mind here that the CEO, Mr Keith Clarke, has provided me with some answers, and I will certainly be pursuing this in the coming weeks. Mr Clarke advised me in estimates:

The government did not give us any direction, according to the bargaining we were doing for our staff, no.

He went on to say:

We as a management of the organisation decided to make a business decision because we wanted to offer an agreement that gives us a bit of flexibility to run the business ... We have had three certified agreements in the past. We believe that the AWA gave us a little bit more flexibility in trying to run the business.

But I get out of estimates and I discover that in fact there has been an exchange of letters between AHL and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, the union representing the workers at AHL. What does it actually say? In a letter to Mr Ferrari, the Assistant National Secretary, AHL had this to say:

The Board meets on five different occasions each year in different States/Territories.

The AHL Board does not get involved in the day to day management of the organisation ...

It is:

... a decision that is being made by AHL management in accordance with Australian Government policy and the AHL Board fully supports their decision.

Whoops! So AWAs are actually now being pushed onto workers at Aboriginal Hostels Ltd in accordance with Australian government policy. What policy might that be? In another letter to the LHMU, signed by Mr Keith Clarke on 5 September 2006, he writes:

Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL) has decided to offer Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA’s) to all eligible employees rather than a collective agreement. This decision is in line with current Government Policy.

One might ask: what policy is that? I asked Aboriginal Hostels Ltd through the Senate committee to clarify on the record why there was some confusion, perhaps dishonesty, at estimates when I later found out that in an exchange of letters with the union they actually referred to a direction of government policy. In the letter that was then sent to the community affairs committee on 21 February this year, signed by Mr Clarke, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd had this to say:

... in no way did I mean this—

that is, the answer they gave me in estimates that it was not in line with government policy; but their decision was in line with government policy if you look at the letters—

to imply that AHL had received any directives or pressure from the Australian Government to offer AWAs rather than a collective agreement. I simply meant that AHL’s choice of opting for AWAs was in keeping with or ‘in line’ with the policy parameters for agreement making in the Australian Public Service.

I suppose the next question we will be asking is exactly what are those policy parameters for agreement making in the Australian Public Service? One might say that that is akin to perhaps covering your tracks. He then goes on to say:

The decision to offer AWAs was a decision by AHL’s management because AWA’s offer more flexibility ...

Wait on. I thought that back on 9 November last year AHL actually said, in a letter from Elaine McKeon:

The AHL Board does not get involved in the day to day management of the organisation ...

So one has got to ask: exactly what is happening here? I know what is happening here. What is being offered under the AWAs is a reduction in annual leave from six weeks to four weeks. They claim that AHL went to six weeks annual leave in an attempt to allow more staff time off and to reduce absenteeism, but that it had not worked. The management argues that this step therefore brings AHL back into line with most other Commonwealth agencies. They further argue that many staff asked for more pay but less leave and that money saved by a reduction in leave would be passed on in pay rises under the AWA. Let us be really clear about this: Aboriginal Hostels workers will remain amongst the worst off. Management say that no workers will be forced to sign an AWA. What choice is that? Stay on the expired workplace agreement with no pay rise over the next three years or sign an AWA. No choice under Work Choices.