Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. Some months before the 2013 election, the coalition released our policy to improve the Fair Work laws. This policy is all about lifting real wages, increasing productivity, making Australian businesses more competitive and, most importantly of all, generating more jobs. Our government is doing everything to encourage businesses to grow so they can employ more people—something which is of particular importance in my electorate of Corangamite.

Just in the last few months, we have seen some outstanding results in job creation generated by our government in partnership with the previous Napthine government under the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, a fund in conjunction with Alcoa and Ford, which is driving already in excess of 750 new jobs. This is a great result for our region, particularly in the growth sectors in advanced manufacturing, in food processing and also in agriculture. A couple of weeks ago, there was a wonderful announcement that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is moving, in part, to Geelong, establishing a centre of excellence. This was one of the recommendations made by the Victorian economic review panel, which was looking into the Victorian economy in the wake of the closure of car manufacturing. One part of the ABS moving to Geelong is a really wonderful initiative, as it decentralises and invests in our wonderful city. The other thing that I keep talking about in terms of job creation—it is all about jobs and infrastructure—is that, just this week, there was fantastic news for the people of Corangamite with the news that the NBN is being rolled out to 34,000 premises across Corangamite in areas most in need of quicker broadband, across the Surf Coast and across the Bellarine. These are just a couple of examples of our very strong focus on jobs and infrastructure.

Our government's aspiration is to bring industrial relations back to the sensible centre, where the rights of employees are balanced with the rights of employers for the sake of jobs and productivity. I wish at this point to remind members what happens when our industrial relations system is out of balance. We have seen some fairly unfortunate examples in my region, the Geelong and Corangamite region, where improper and unlawful union conduct stifles jobs, productivity and business confidence. Perhaps the best example of that is what happened on the Regional Rail Link worksite, when the conduct of the CFMEU—which can only be described as terribly unlawful to the point where there was very strong action taken by the courts—shut down that site. It caused so much distress, particularly for Boral. The Supreme Court made orders against the unlawful protesting by the CFMEU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Boral was effectively shut out. The CEO of Boral gave some evidence in the royal commission and basically said that this amounted to blackmail. It cost the company $10 million, and he described it as a criminal conspiracy, which really amounted to a situation where Boral was shut out of getting other important work. It is a terrible reflection on the CFMEU and on what happens when extremist, unlawful union conduct invades the workplace. This is the same CFMEU that so heavily backed Labor in the Victorian state election and that is helping to drive up construction costs in Victoria by an average of 30 per cent more than any other state. Throughout all this time, through a prism of the CFMEU donating millions of dollars to Labor, we have had deathly silence from the Labor Party on the unlawful, extreme, thuggish conduct of the CFMEU. Here was Boral, a supplier to Grocon, an innocent party, being shut out of work, and the costs and impacts were profound. As the member for Wannon has raised in his contribution, in this debate today there are two very different positions. There is the one taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 report last night, where he talks about the importance of productivity, and the one here in the House today, where Labor is in denial over the importance of productivity.

As we have heard, the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill before the House implements the final tranche of the government's amendments to the Fair Work Act that were clearly outlined in our policy, and it makes a number of important improvements to the process of bargaining but, importantly, retains employee protections and also employee rights. These changes do not reduce rights; they simply ensure transparency around existing rights. I want to briefly go through each of the main changes. The first one is all about putting productivity back on the agenda by requiring parties to at least discuss improvements to productivity during negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. There is no requirement that productivity be an outcome in terms of any changes to an EBA. There is no requirement that the parties reach agreement on productivity. The only requirement is that it be discussed. Here we have members opposite objecting to this. Incredibly, the member for Bendigo, in her contribution, even said, 'This is not about productivity. This bill is not about productivity.' The kindest thing I can say about her contribution is that she clearly has not read the bill. Here we have the Leader of the Opposition on television last night talking about the importance of productivity for jobs and for growth for this nation, when our government is so focused on building productivity and growing jobs, and we have members opposite blocking such an important part of our industrial relations regime. All we are saying and all we are requiring in the bargaining process is that productivity be discussed. The Leader of the Opposition last night had no problem with that, and, now, in an act of what I can only describe as hypocrisy, we are seeing a very different position.

A second element of our bill is that unions and employees do not use industrial action as a tool of first resort. They must ensure that they have at least attempted to engage in meaningful discussions with the employer before resorting to industrial action. I remind the House that the Fair Work Commission will continue to be at the centre of the industrial action processes. Employees will still have a right to take protected action as part of their bargaining for enterprise agreements. Authorising the ballots to take industrial action will remain the responsibility of the independent Fair Work Commission. So what we are seeing is more transparency for an existing right.

This bill will require a union applying for industrial action to provide the commission with information on the steps the union has taken in negotiating the new agreement, whether the union has told the employer specifically what the employees are seeking in the negotiations—it is common courtesy, frankly—whether the union has responded to employer offers or counter proposals; and generally how far negotiations have progressed. These items are based on a leading decision of the Fair Work Commission on what are relevant considerations the commission should look to before authorising an industrial action ballot. Really, by including these items in a list in the legislation we are seeking to ensure that there is a consistent decision-making approach by the commission and its various members.

The other element of this bill is to ensure that claims, in support of which industrial action is being taken, are not unrealistic or implausible. We recognise, of course, that industrial action is an important employee right. It is a right, however, that must be exercised responsibly rather than capriciously. So the bill gives the independent commission the express power to refuse to authorise an industrial action ballot if the commission is satisfied that the claims over which the unions wishes to take industrial action are manifestly excessive or would have a significant adverse impact on productivity.

Currently one of the big issues with the Fair Work Act is that it allows for industrial action to be taken in pursuit of almost any bargaining claim, no matter how extreme, no matter how unrealistic and no matter how unreasonable. I just want to draw on one recent example of reports of protected action ballot orders made in relation to claims by marine engineers in Port Hedland, where they were seeking a pay increase of 38 per cent over four years. The reports indicated that the claim, which includes an additional month of annual leave, is on top of existing salary packages of between $280,000 and $390,000, where employees only work for six months of the year, on a week-on, week-off roster. Clearly the claim that was being made was completely excessive—manifestly excessive.

What we are seeking to do in this very important amendment is, again, strike a reasonable balance. We have no issue with industrial action but we have an issue with manifestly excessive claims—extreme claims and claims which are calculated to generate industrial mayhem rather than a sense of industrial equity as part of the bargaining process.

I want to very briefly reflect on the contribution of the member for Griffith, who claimed that the bill undermines the right to strike and undermines the right to bargain collectively. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have made that very, very clear. Nothing could be further from the truth but—

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley interjects. I am very disappointed that the member for Chifley has not spoken about the unlawful, thuggish behaviour of the CFMEU and how that has driven down jobs and productivity in my electorate. That has been incredibly disappointing in terms of a very important project, the Regional Rail Link, to which the federal government is contributing $2.9 billion, which is going to be so important for the people of my electorate—the people who live in Geelong and south-west Victoria—connecting with Melbourne.

We have seen that Boral has been shut out in the most terrible of circumstances. And members opposite have said nothing.

Mr Husic interjecting—

See this speech in context