Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 10), insert:

(2) Schedule 5, page 29 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:

4 At the end of Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 5 -1

  Add:

595A Conciliation and arbitration of disputes

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act but without limitation, the FWC may deal with a dispute in the following way:

  (a) in the first 3 months of the dispute—by fixing a date to begin conciliation;

  (b) in the 3 months following the date fixed to begin conciliation—by conciliation;

(c) after the end of the period referred to in paragraph (b)—by arbitration (including by making any orders it considers appropriate) on application by:

     (i) an employee who is a party to the dispute; or

     (ii) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of such an employee.

(2) On application in accordance with paragraph (1)(c), the FWC:

  (a) may arbitrate the dispute; and

  (b) must arbitrate the dispute if arbitration by the FWC is agreed to by:

     (i) a majority of the employees who are parties to the dispute, by a voting method approved by the FWC; and

     (ii) any organisations entitled to represent the industrial interests of those employees.

(3) On request by an employee who is a party to the dispute or an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of such an employee, the FWC may, but is not required to:

  (a) consider; and

  (b) approve or refuse to approve;

a voting method for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(i).

I will speak very briefly. The issues that I am talking about are extremely complex, so I will just give generalities without going into all the specifics. But the generality is a fairly simple principle: where people are having an argument about whether they should get a pay rise or whether they should not, for 110 years in this country when that dispute occurred it was resolved by way of arbitration. I tend to feel that I am looking like an extremist insofar as I am putting up a proposition which successive governments have subscribed to in this country for 110 years.

When we play football, we have a referee; it is a fairly simple concept. When we have a disagreement between the employer and the employee, we then go to a referee called an arbitration commission to make a determination. The opposition abolished our right to get a fair go and, of course, the government has not restored it, because the current access to the arbitration commission is really no access at all, except for the purpose of stopping a strike. There is no ability for either side to go to the arbitration commission and ask for an award determination. That power is not there. All I am asking is what every successive government in 110 years in this country agreed to—anything but an extremist position. The fact that I actually have to defend that position is a reflection upon every person in this House who is not going to vote with me and the member for Denison. We are simply asking for a restoration of the parties' access to arbitration.

There are other bits and pieces here, but, the time being late, I know I will not be given the time to complete an explanation of the other aspects of the bill, so I will just state the central thrust of what we are talking about here. The Liberal government removed arbitration. They said, 'You will now play football without a referee'—a touch of humour, Madam Speaker. We did it last night and I didn't think it was a real good idea, but that might be a viewpoint of a New South Welshman! But to put aside the humour and come back to the seriousness of this debate: all I am asking for is that, when an employer and an employee cannot agree about, for example, a CPI increase, the parties have the right to go to arbitration—we are back playing football with a referee, which every single government in this place for 110 years has considered a reasonable proposition. When that right was removed, the people thought it was so unreasonable that they threw Prime Minister Bruce out of parliament altogether. John Howard—except for this little aberration, a very decent Australian, in my opinion—they threw out as well.

Our position is not unreasonable. Our position is the position that every single Australian, if they thought about it, would have. They would be in here voting the same way as me and the honourable member for Denison.

See this speech in context