Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the Governor-General’s speech in the address-in-reply debate. I think it is important to recognise that for over 100 years of Australia’s industrial relations system there were awards and safety nets, and wages and conditions were collectively negotiated between employers and employees. But, unfortunately, around 1996 there happened to be some major shake-ups. I would be the first to admit that no system is ever unflawed or perfect, and there is always an opportunity to improve any system. I know that because I played an integral part from 1991 trying to improve award conditions and take-home pay for truck drivers and transport workers in Western Australia.

It is important to have a brief look at the history going back to 1996 and the election of the Howard government. The Howard government had a mandate; they clearly won the election by the will of the Australian voters. But part of their shake-up in industrial relations set the scene for a very rocky road over the following 10 years. In 1996, with the help of the Democrats in this chamber, major changes were made, and Australian workplace agreements were brought in. With the greatest of respect to the Democrats and Senator Murray—I know the contribution he made to try to improve the lot that was confronting the Senate at the time—the Australian workplace agreements had this no disadvantage test. That was introduced as part of the workplace relations reform back in 1996. With the greatest respect to the Democrats, who were trying to do the best thing, there was a government department called the Office of the Employment Advocate that was charged with making sure that when workplace agreements were negotiated there would be no disadvantage, as I said, and workers would not find themselves going backwards. Sadly, it was a disgraceful part of our history. The Office of the Employment Advocate clearly was just another annexure to the Howard Liberal government. I know this because on many occasions Australian workplace agreements came across my desk and had it not been for the ability of employees to use their union to try to negotiate a better outcome there would have been a greater number of workers disadvantaged.

At the same time, running in parallel across the other side of the country, we had the Court Liberal state government, and we had a certain minister who had an absolute—I don’t know—disregard for workers and who introduced individual workplace agreements. These individual workplace agreements were disguised in what were called the first, second and third waves of IR reform, which saw some of the most abhorrent workplace agreements that you could ever imagine, where workers lost numerous conditions. To make it worse, it really was on a take it or leave it basis.

When we talk about individual workplace agreements there is a misconception on the other side of the chamber that it is all about flexibility and what is best for both parties. Sadly, that could not be further from the truth. And we witnessed this. In fact, we witnessed it to the stage that it got so bad in Western Australia that we had some 20,000 workers filling the streets of Perth and marching up to Parliament House. I remember attending that rally. To those from Victoria, 20,000 people on the street might not seem like a lot. Twenty thousand workers on the street protesting against archaic industrial relations legislation in Sydney might not be a lot. But, coming from that great state of Western Australia, 20,000 people on the streets is a lot—they were probably on their way to a West Coast Eagles-Fremantle derby or to the Perth Cup. So there were a significant number of workers protesting. Finally, it led to the demise of the Court Liberal government. And that election was very clearly fought on industrial relations.

We saw the same thing happening here. In 2004 the Howard government took control of the Senate. There was no mandate to tip industrial relations on its head. There was absolutely no mandate in the 2004 election yet the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the minister for industrial relations said they were going to tip industrial relations on its head. There was absolutely no mandate at all. Unfortunately, Mr Howard could not help himself; he had control of the Senate and he could do what ever he liked. So in 2004 along came the Work Choices legislation.

We have had all the arguments for and all the arguments against. Every senator on this side of the chamber spoke against Work Choices. Sadly, on the other side, not all senators spoke in favour of Work Choices. Deep down in their heart of hearts there were senators opposite who knew this system was flawed. There were senators opposite who knew that Work Choices would disadvantage those in the community. Sadly, it would disadvantage those who did not have a profession and those who were not tradespeople. Women were affected by this and so were those who had English as a second language. But the worst part about the advent of Work Choices—after the 1,620 pages of explanatory memoranda and legislation—was the $121 million of taxpayers money that was spent. The amount of $121 million rolls off the tongue very easily. God help us! I know what we could do with $121 million if we put it into hospitals, dental care, child care or police stations. It cost $121 million to tell the people of Australia what a great thing Work Choices was. The rest is all history, but we will never get back that $121 million. That will not be rightfully returned to the taxpayers of Australia.

I am one of the first people to stand up and say that change is not necessarily harmful. Change can be good and we must always change and be evolutionary, whether it is in industrial relations or anything else we do. In my journeys as a Transport Workers Union official, as a truck driver, I met some fantastic employers. Make no mistake: I met some very, very genuine people. They were people who got up in the morning and worked damn hard. They put their family homes on the line to build their business. They put their family homes on the line and they lost hours with their children and their spouses. They worked seven days a week to create a business and a better future for their children. By the same token, they also gave employees an opportunity to share in that common wealth or that prosperity. As a TWU organiser, I always used to say to the employers, ‘I really want your business to be successful, because I want your employees, who chose to be members of my union, to share in that.’ Over the years we have seen an array of employers—and I say ‘employers’—who were unfairly treated through the advent of Work Choices. We knew the rule book was thrown out with Work Choices. We knew that decency and fairness could be consigned to the scrap heap if there were unscrupulous employers who would take advantage of that shocking legislation.

In my home state of WA it is no secret that the mining industry is a major driver of our economy. Those employed in the mining industry share in that productivity and that prosperity. I would be the first one to admit that those on Australian workplace agreements in the mining industry had no reason to feel that they had been shafted. They had no reason to feel that they had been disadvantaged, because they were rewarded—there is no doubt about that. At the same time, there was a host of workers who were not employed in the mining industry—workers in contract cleaning, contract security, hospitality, retail and transport, to name a few—who were, for want of a better word, shafted, because unscrupulous employers had the Work Choices legislation at their hand where they could belt those who did not have the power to negotiate collectively or those whose skills were not in great demand, as they were in mining and construction.

This will not surprise anyone: when the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations toured the country over the past few weeks, we had employer bodies, namely the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the mining and metals industry—surprise, surprise!—who claimed to be representative of all industry. When they were asked whether Work Choices had unfairly disadvantaged a host of their members, because of unscrupulous employers who chose to use it to undermine their competitors, they would not have a bar of it. They said their members supported it or that everyone was in favour of it.

It has been only three years since I first sat in the Senate. It has been three years since I sat in the boardrooms of numerous trucking companies who used to say to me that the worst thing that ever happened was when awards or collective bargaining started breaking down without the true safety nets that could protect not only their employees, their future employees and other road users but also, just as importantly, the truck drivers behind the wheels of those juggernauts. They were undermined. They could be undermined in major contracts, because unscrupulous employers would do the wrong thing. With my hand on my heart, I sincerely hope and pray that they are the minority. But they are out there.

Fortunately, with the election of a Rudd Labor government, we have the chance now of righting the wrongs. We will right the wrongs. Senators opposite who did not oppose the bill—they did not support it, but they did not oppose it; I have heard some mealy-mouthed words over the years, but that was a beauty, an absolute classic—knew in their heart of hearts that there was not the flexibility in every workplace for employers and employees to negotiate, one on one, to improve their lot.

During our inquiries around the country, BGC, a major construction company involved heavily in mining in WA, put a submission to us. We asked BGC what they thought about patent bargaining. The employers all wanted to raise the bogy of the unions who might pattern bargain, because we cannot have a level playing field, and that is fine. When we asked BGC and other employers in the Perth hearings, and employers in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, about the difference between individual and collective workplace agreements that were between the employer and the employee, they all gave the same answer. They all told us very categorically that they were not any different; they were the same agreement. The only difference between them was the expiry date. So one has to ask this question: where is the flexibility? What it really boiled down to was that these agreements were pattern agreements. BGC even confessed—and these are not the precise words of BGC, but they can be checked on the Hansardthat when they interviewed their future employees it was take it or leave it. ‘That is what you will be paid. If you do not like it, find something else.’ Where the heck is flexibility? Where the heck is the individual choice? Where is the ability to improve your lot if you are presented with take it or leave it pattern agreements?

I have listened to some of the input from senators opposite. There has been some very good input from senators opposite. And, my God, there has been some rubbish. They sit there and try to have us believe that the worst thing that Australians could confront is the fear of a worker daring to call his or her union in to negotiate on their behalf when you have major employers who have flouted these laws and owned up and said on Hansard: ‘Yes, we do use these agreements. No, there is no difference; they’re all the same, and it really is take it or leave it.’ Fortunately, a lot of things came out of those hearings.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you are keeping them.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fisher, you were there. Some of your performances were talked about, too. We enjoyed listening to your input.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Memorable.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Memorable is the word that I will use, Senator Hutchins, for fear of a glass flying across the chamber at me. Senators opposite said that they would die in a ditch over these fantastic Australian workplace agreements. Senator Johnston, the last time I looked at you you looked alive and well, and you certainly were not in a ditch. Western Australian Liberal senators said that they would die in a ditch to keep these and that the employers being represented by ACCI would all die in a ditch to keep them. But what came out of the Senate estimates through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations was—wait for this—that their figures show that probably five per cent to seven per cent of Australians are on Australian workplace agreements.

I have already said that they were very popular in mining. They are popular in construction. And they were also supposedly popular in those other industries such as contract cleaning, contract security and hospitality. If they were that damn popular, why are only five per cent to seven per cent of Australians on them? That just sends the message home—in my interpretation—that not all employers wanted them. A host of employers were quite happy having collective agreements. A host of employers were happy having union negotiated agreements. A host of employers were happy to have the award system. For those five per cent to seven per cent who used them, the arguments do not stack up.

While I am on this, there was overwhelming evidence once again from those industries that were not directly employed in mining that they grossly undervalued the workers. Some of the employers could not help disadvantage not only their employees but also their clients. I support improvement. I support moving with the times. I support taking conditions and wages and moulding them to suit not only the employee but the employer. Employers employ Australians who may choose to be a member of a union and those who do not.

I will present one reason why we need an umpire, fairness, laws and rules. In the West Australian newspaper on Friday, 14 March there was an article that talks about a very high profile builder in Western Australia. He is high profile for a number of reasons. One is that he loves to come out and fight with the CFMEU. That is between him and the CFMEU—I am sure that they will sort that out between themselves. His notoriety is highlighted here. Low and behold, he got caught exploiting foreign workers—migrant workers from the Philippines. This is a very high profile builder who happens to be a donor to the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party. There is nothing wrong with being to a donor to the Liberal Party, but here we have people saying that they will die in a ditch to keep Australian workplace agreements while a major employer gets caught red-handed exploiting foreign workers. I will quote from the West Australian:

Migrant workers claim controversial builder Gerry Hanssen, who has been fined a record $174,000—

How do reputable employers get fined $174,000? For exploiting workers. It goes on:

... lured them to Australia with false promises of free airfares, accommodation and tools.

The article goes on to say that the migrant workers:

... claimed that six months after they arrived in Perth, Mr Hanssen, who is a Liberal Party State councillor—

yes, he is a state councillor—

gave them only one day to consider a new Australian Workplace Agreement which removed the benefits, despite being aware they would sign anything for fear of deportation.

The article goes on:

Outside the court on Wednesday, Workplace Ombudsman Nick Wilson accused Mr Hanssen of threatening the workers with dismissal and deportation unless they agreed not to date their AWAs.

Further:

The workers, who did not want to be named—

and I can understand why—

said yesterday they had paid back their airfare and bought their own tools. They said they lived in constant fear of deportation, which one described as a ‘psychological war,’ and that they were too scared to decline being rostered to work 12-hour days for six or seven days each week.

It all goes back to this. I say once again that there are a host of very decent Australian employers out there. But they are being undermined by the ratbag minority who were given the chance to exploit anyone using laws that those on the other side passed. I know that some of the senators opposite could not hold their heads very high. I know that some of the senators opposite had the same fears that Labor had. (Time expired)

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note Senator Sterle’s speech and congratulate Labor for retaining a form of individual statutory agreement, subject to a safety net, in Australia’s workplace relations system. I rise to comment on the Governor-General’s speech in this address-in-reply debate and in particular an interesting line—a claim made by the Governor-General about the Commonwealth establishing a new framework for cooperative Commonwealth-state relations. While the Prime Minister has trumpeted cooperative federalism, so far during his time in office there has been very little evidence of it. More than 100 days of the Rudd Labor government and where are we at on a national water plan? It has stalled. In fact, tragically, I would say that it is drying up. Where are we on a national workplace relations plan? Grounded. What about a national plan for genetically modified crops? There simply isn’t one. What about a new health funding agreement across Australia? That has been labelled ‘blackmail’ by Labor’s own. What about a national deposit scheme for drinking cans? You would think a Rudd Labor government could manage that. Indeed, we have seen legislation introduced on that topic by Family First.

Cooperative federalism is nothing new. It has been high on the new Prime Minister’s agenda for a number of years. Mr Rudd gave a speech to the Don Dunstan Foundation, Queensland chapter, back in 2005. It was called ‘The case for cooperative federalism’. In that speech the now Prime Minister reiterated that Labor was the party of nationalism. He went on to wax lyrical about the history of cooperative federalism under Labor and what could happen under a future Labor government led by the Prime Minister. It is too bad, but it seems that the states and his state colleagues obviously missed that speech because they are launching into a new round of complaints, accusation and very open threats.

Cooperative federalism as a concept can of course have benefits for all Australians. Governments working together in the national interest are to be welcomed, especially when state governments have been derelict in their duty of representing their constituents. In themselves, savings coming from removing duplication of services and agreement on how to treat national issues so that no state is left behind. They are important in ensuring that Australia continues to enjoy the prosperity that we have been able to enjoy and achieve over the last decade.

After last year’s election we saw glowing newspaper headlines, such as ‘Brumby predicts ends to feuds with Canberra’ and ‘A new era of cooperative federalism says Rudd’. New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma stated, ‘For the first time in 15 years we are in a period of cooperative federalism.’ Queensland Premier Anna Bligh stressed the need for a more cooperative approach to Commonwealth-state relations. Well, it is more than 100 days since then and where are we at now? Almost four months after the election we have noted there is no consensus on issues that have been labelled as urgent by the new government on issues that have been labelled their ‘first priorities’. We find the states are still fighting for their own slice of turf.

What about water? Water, of course, continues to be a critical issue for my home state of South Australia. The lack of rainfall and continuing low flows from the River Murray are continuing to cause South Australian irrigators and households major problems. Yet what progress have we seen on a cooperative national plan since 24 November last year? Well, colleagues, we have had a headline from the Adelaide Advertiser on 22 December entitled: ‘Missed Chance to Break River Murray Deadlock’. That was of course after COAG left the river off the agenda for its first meeting. Since then we have seen a meeting of Australian premiers completely ignore the issue again. What was their reasoning? Because the federal government did not attend the meeting. So progress on any Murray-Darling Basin agreement remains incremental at best, with the Victorian Premier warning that an agreement could take months, at least. This is not a very good start to cooperative federalism of unheralded proportions.

To top it all off we had the Prime Minister come to South Australia late last month and urge us all to be patient, because the Minister for Climate Change and Water had to do the hard yards of negotiation before Mr Rudd would step in and take over, as we learn he will. We seem to be lurching from one talkfest to another, but on this critical issue the Prime Minister is going to China, isn’t he? So he obviously does not see this issue as important over the next seven or so weeks, because we know that there will be no significant progress on this issue without him there to control it.

Meanwhile we see incremental steps on water. These get celebrated while the major questions and issues remain. It is as if the progress is a trickle but the government continues to ignore the major blockage up the line. There is a press release from the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, claiming that cooperation on the Murray-Darling is a step closer. Independent water commentator Professor Mike Young, who is a professor in water economics and management at the University of Adelaide, said on Adelaide radio, ‘Look, it’s too early to say that any progress has been made.’ So after four months a water crisis continues to hit South Australia, in particular, and the eminent independent expert in the field says it is too early to say what progress has been made.

The concept of an independent national commission to control the Murray-Darling water system has gone out the window, effectively, with the states putting forward a position that they will have a say in the selection of chairs and commissioners. This does not strike me as being very independent. Pandering to state self-interest is not progress, and it does not strike me as cooperative federalism either. Indeed, it will not solve the fundamental problem.

In South Australia we are struggling continually with the issue of a sustainable water supply. We have just come out of a record-breaking heatwave, and the South Australian resources minister refused to allow an extra one-off day of watering for household gardens to help them through the heat. So South Australia can enjoy being a barren gateway. Water security through the Murray-Darling Basin is not something that South Australians can continue waiting for Victoria to move forward on. It is not an issue that has just occurred. A deal was first put on the table over 14 months ago, so why do we continue to wait while cooperative federalism on this issue moves at glacial place?

Just as foolish to me seems to be the issue of not removing a moratorium on genetically modified crops across Australia. I was somewhat taken aback by the South Australian government’s recent announcement that our state would join Tasmania and Western Australia—sadly, Senator Johnston—in continuing to have a moratorium on genetically modified crops. Going against the South Australian experts and the advice sought by the South Australian government and with agriculture minister Rory McEwen himself appointed to independently review the relevant act, the South Australian Premier and Minister McEwen announced that the moratorium would continue. So what do we now have in this country? We have New South Wales and Victoria looking to push forward on the issue of genetically modified crops, with new research and technology which will benefit farmers and the community in lifting their moratorium; we have Queensland, which never had a moratorium in the first place; and South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania keeping a moratorium.

There are very significant questions about genetically modified technology that need to be asked and debated. These include legal questions posed by the technology and health and scientific issues, but we will not be answering them from a South Australian base in a hurry, particularly in a country where some people can grow genetically modified crops and others cannot. As one of my very wise South Australian colleagues asked about the issue recently in a speech in the South Australian Legislative Council:

Will there be roadblocks at the border—

of course we are talking about the South Australian-Victorian border—

to ensure that no farmer from the South-East gets a bag of seed from his neighbour in Victoria? Will a farmer who has half his farm on either side of an imaginary line be forced to grow our old redundant canola on half of his farm but be able to use the new technology on the Victorian side? Does this then prevent free trade between the states for grain or seed? Does it also mean that contract harvesters and carters who work across the border will no longer be able to do so? And, if they are able to, will they have to have certification?

She finally asked:

Who will carry out the inspections?

These are all issues that need to be addressed if our governments cannot get together and work out a nationwide policy on the issue. In the face of the lifting of moratoriums and the ability for the eastern states to grow and produce genetically modified crops, what value does a South Australian Premier, what magic does a South Australian Premier, think exists in a border? What is a border going to do, for example, that industry self-management and industry self-segregation cannot do? What value is there in a state border which is not already being achieved—it must be—in respect of some 21 experimental plots for genetically modified crops in the south-east of South Australia? If those experiments are able to be carried out with the blessing of the South Australian government then clearly genetically modified crops must be able to be grown with management of the issue. What value is there in a state border to then continue to have a moratorium on the growth of genetically modified crops state wide, particularly in a country where some can grow and some others cannot?

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said that he would have preferred a national approach to any lifting of the moratorium. Sadly, instead of that we have seen a frantic push by states to try to mark their individual territory on the issue. South Australians and South Australian farmers in particular deserve to be able to debate the important aspects of genetically modified crops. The really important issues that must be debated include the right to plant and seed rights, challenges that may be faced by those who consider themselves to be the owners of those plants and seeds, and the ability for farmers to compete into the future if we are to keep abreast of where the rest of the world is going—that is, essentially producing genetically modified crops. But as South Australians, for example, how can we engage with any credibility on that issue when we are not even allowed to grow the crops in the first place? How can South Australia continue to attract talented scientists and talented researchers to research the future of genetically modified crops, or not, if we cannot even credibly engage in the debate in the first place because, whilst others can grow them, we cannot? Where is the Rudd government leadership on this issue?

Health is a pretty prickly topic for cooperative federalism these days. It was supposed to be the major issue where the state premiers and the federal government could find common ground. Throughout 2007 Kevin Rudd proudly went on television and radio to proclaim that the election of a Labor government would lead to better health services for all Australians. But again, just as with water, incremental moves get made and they get celebrated as a major milestone.

Debate interrupted.