Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Bill 2008. The coalition government put an extra two million Australians into employment. There are currently well over 10.6 million Australians in work—a record high. Over 7.6 million Australians are in full-time employment and three million are in part-time work. I am here to strongly represent the small businesses and workers in my electorate of Forrest. The Rudd Labor government will put 134,000 people out of work, according to their budget forecast. Now there are additional concerns that 200,000 people will be out of work by 2010. The best policy is one of job creation, not job losses and deficit.

My electorate in the south-west of Western Australia, through its commercial diversity, is a powerhouse in the state and national economies. The south-west needs a flexible workforce to drive productivity and growth. Many workers need and ask for flexibility. Many larger corporations have employment policies for very flexible workplaces, allowing their staff to work from home—for example, those returning to work after maternity leave—to job-share and, for some, to work two days per week. Such flexibility is a necessity.

Christopher Russell, the business editor of the Adelaide Advertiser, on 26 November reported that Peter Vaughan cautioned that:

… with uncertain economic times ahead, it is vital that this Bill does not adversely affect the ability of businesses to increase their productivity.

A key reason for the ability of small and medium businesses to create jobs and provide real wages growth is the flexibility previous reforms have provided, especially with the number of developments and amount of regional growth.

Aspects of this Fair Work Bill have significant ramifications, particularly for building and mining sites, such as a return to the days of blackmail and intimidation from unions and closing down of sites, as exposed by the Cole royal commission. Under this bill, unions will be given easier access to workplaces and the right to inspect the records of non-union employees. This is an outrageous abuse of personal rights. The privacy of employment records cannot be assured even under the Privacy Act. Surely both the employer and the non-union employee have a right to privacy.

It comes as no surprise that, where the bill deviates from election promises, it does so apparently to appease those to whom Labor owes its biggest election debt—the unions. Minister Gillard promised no compulsory arbitration. That is in the bill. The minister promised no pattern bargaining. That is in the bill. The government promised that rules for union rights of entry to workplaces would stay the same. But it is not the same in the bill. Unions will have access to non-union member records; have a privileged seat at the bargaining table; and be able to enter a vastly expanded number of workplaces, even workplaces where the employer and employees have previously agreed that they do not want or need union involvement. This legislation unlocks the doors of virtually all workplaces to unions. These are things that the Australian people did not know they were voting for, and in fact Australians were expressly and explicitly told the exact opposite—that these measures would not be a feature of the new system.

I also note that operational reasons will no longer be acceptable as reasons for dismissal. What about the recent gas explosion and crisis in Western Australia? South-west businesses were basically left with little or no gas to operate their businesses. As a result, work stopped. Employers tried very hard to hold onto their staff, not wanting to lose them, particularly in a time of labour and skills shortages. There were businesses that closed down and there were some that had no option but to let good staff go due to circumstances beyond their control. What will happen in similar future circumstances when a small business cannot sustain paying employees if there is no work and no income for the business?

Christopher Russell from the Adelaide Advertiser also reported that small business wants an industrial relations system which is simple, straightforward, cooperative and recognises the rights of employers. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, Peter Anderson, states:

The new rights and compliance obligations will, over time, involve additional cost to employers, including non-unionised workplaces and smaller businesses.

Peak industry associations and representative bodies believe that they will be actively engaged in the debate on this bill as it passes through the House, the Senate and its committees, and that Independent members will need to strongly represent and act on industry concerns and reserve the right to move amendments to improve the operation of the legislation. The coalition, however, will be vigilant in relation to its impact on the real economy, in particular on jobs. I ask: how, in practical terms for small business, will union accountability and transparency be monitored and enforced? Giving unions greater power increases the chances of industrial disruption, shifting the focus of the business entity from productivity and job creation to managing disruptive union processes.

I am here to strongly represent the nearly 14,000 small businesses and workers in my electorate. The government’s changes to workplace relations come at a very challenging time for the Australian economy, when jobs and productivity are critical. In this environment, the government needs to encourage enterprise—encourage small, medium and large businesses to have a go and to have the confidence to invest and take risks, contributing to our macro economy by creating jobs and taking on new employees as well as training them.

Where is the incentive for a small business proprietor buying a new business and wanting to bring in their own personnel to take the business forward? Under this bill, the employment decision has been taken away from them because they must maintain the previous owners’ employees, removing the fundamental rights of small business owners to make their own commercial decisions. The nearly 14,000 small businesses in my electorate employ many thousands of workers, some of the four million employed by small business in Australia, with employers and employees working as a team; with employees valued and respected as a critical part of the business productivity, growth and success and often paid well above award rates for their loyalty and hard work.

A real test of the potential of this legislation is the fact that these same businesses do not want to be named in this speech, and I do not want to name them for fear of union targeting. I will quote from one of the companies in my electorate, a major employer who has been briefed by the local chamber of commerce and industry that outlined the key provisions of this bill. The company said: ‘In particular, under the key changes in the bill, employers will be forced into collective bargaining. An employee may apply to the new umpire, Fair Work Australia, for an order requiring the employer to bargain. There is little likelihood of a non-union agreement as the employer must notify each employee of their representational rights. In the absence of any response from the employee, a union which has representational rights will be the bargaining representative of the employee. Unions will be able to put a far more extensive set of issues, including union related issues, on the bargaining table, and this has the potential to extend the right to strike over issues not related to direct employment conditions.’ The company believes that this proposed legislation is, in its words, ‘repugnant’ not only to free enterprise but also to personal liberty.

As for the provision that allows unions the right to inspect records of employees who are not union members, the company commented: ‘Certainly, everyone has a right to join any legal organisation they choose. But it is ethically wrong to have a person’s confidential employment information forcibly revealed to an organisation of which they are not a member.’ Its existing individual contracts with its staff serve everyone very well. Staff have even asked if they will be able to keep their individual agreements. Its workers do not want those changes.

The company will not be alone in urging for the removal of the onerous provisions in the bill before it finds its conversations with employees shadowed by some uninvited union functionary. Its comments end by pointing out that ‘the last thing our economy needs is an extra layer of meddlers’. Those were its words.

This bill will do nothing for small business confidence, which is already at an all-time low under the Rudd-Swan Labor government. Growth indicators including sales, profits, employment and investment all fell during the last quarter, an issue that has to be managed by Australia’s 2.4 million small businesses. Strikes and industrial disputes dominated the landscape in the 19th and 20th centuries. There was an urgent need to make the 100-year-old industrial relations laws relevant to current productivity needs. The Cole royal commission exposed the widespread disregard of obligations concerning the unions’ power to enter work premises and inspect employment records. Increased union activity on building sites will go back to the days of manipulation, harassment and control.

In these current global economic times, Australia cannot afford to return to the days of, for example, Kevin Reynolds getting away with his overpowering tactics, which again was exposed by the Cole royal commission. As one worker said:

Any time we tried to carry out work, they—

the union—

would stand in our way, hinder us, heckle us, made it very uncomfortable for the workers when abuse gets out of control. They were basically preventing contractors from carrying out their contractual obligations.

Australia has evolved since that time. Australia has moved on and there should be no possibility of a return to a situation where intimidation and violence could once again dominate our building and construction landscape. Where are the safeguards? Can we expect more delays because of union involvement in every aspect of our commercial activity?

I will give another example of a business in my electorate. They filed for a labour agreement with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship because they wanted to invest approximately $2 million to expand the business and needed more staff to help them expand. They did all the right things. The operation is not a unionised site, but they consulted the unions from the outset to ensure they did everything right. The union gave its approval and the application was filed with the immigration department. It took seven long months and many follow-up calls and letters to establish where the application was and why it was taking so long. The delay nearly prevented the business from meeting their expanded contractual obligations under their tender. The delay was with the Rudd Labor government, which gave a blanket instruction that the unions needed to be involved and provide input to the business operations before any approval was given. So this is what lies ahead.

A recent OECD report said it is important for the ongoing reform of Australia’s workplace system to preserve flexibility in the job market. Western Australia is a progressive ‘can-do’ state, one that is specifically reliant on a flexible workforce to maintain growth and development. The Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has noted very serious concerns in relation to this bill that the proposed changes will disadvantage many small, medium and large businesses. Marcia Kuhne, the work relations policy officer, notes on the chamber’s website under the headline ‘Union power to grow under new federal industrial relations changes’:

WA’s economy has benefited from a flexible industrial relations system, giving employers and employees the choice to collectively bargain or negotiate individual agreements.

WA business and industry, which are a key driver of the State’s and the Nation’s economic growth, must be helped, not handicapped, to grow and create more jobs. Our world class export industries must also be supported to compete internationally.

The chamber is extremely concerned that unions will be handed greater influence over agreement making and workplace issues and that the likelihood of disruptive and costly industrial action will increase with the range of workplace issues open to negotiation extended.

Unions, which represent 16 per cent of the Western Australian workforce, will also be invited to the negotiating table even if only one worker is a member. They will also be given greater access to work sites and the employment records of workers. The Western Australian Chamber of Commerce understands the situation very explicitly. In its words:

The need for a modern and flexible industrial relations system has never been greater as the global community looks to business and industry to drive economic growth, create more jobs and help insulate the local economy from the current global economic uncertainty.

The Australian Industry Group’s chief executive, Heather Ridout, stated on 2 May 2007:

There are serious questions about the viability of the ALP’s Fair Work Australia proposal.

               …            …            …

While the current level of industrial action is very low it was only a few years ago that construction and manufacturing unions were wreaking havoc on industry with pattern bargaining campaigns and industry-wide industrial action. The AIRC stepped in and used its powers to the fullest extent to protect the national interest and to stop unnecessary losses of income by employers and employees. If industrial action breaks out under a new workplace relations system, a strong tribunal is needed. The AIRC has proved that it can deliver, but will Fair Work Australia have the teeth and the will?

Greenfields agreements provisions that force employers to secure approval for a greenfields agreement from all unions that are eligible to represent members of a potential workforce will be a minefield for industry. Corporate lawyers are warning their clients of the difficulties they will experience when having to deal with every different union and with having a member in their particular project and potential workforce.

The Australian Mines and Metals Association chief executive, Steve Knott, was reported in the Financial Review of 28 November 2008 as saying:

… the provisions would open the door for union turf wars and allow unions to “hold employers to ransom. This will be a nightmare for major resource-sector construction projects that often require pre-start agreements to be registered with known terms and conditions before final investment decisions are approved”.

This provision in the bill has extremely serious ramifications for growth and development in Western Australia. The test of this bill, like every bill, is what it does for jobs and productivity.

See this speech in context