David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, I am pleased that I have provoked you into comment. Senator Brandis, the last time you interposed you probably got another two minutes out of Senator Milne and I fear you might achieve the same with me. Mr Costello called for Mr Turnbull to renege on his commitment made in November, and Mr Turnbull has now complied. Only four months ago Mr Turnbull gave a clear commitment that the coalition would not oppose the substance of this bill—and yet here you are doing that. None of us on this side are surprised by this humiliating backdown. The Liberal Party room is full of what the Prime Minister today called the ‘Work Choices addicts’. They dominate the positions on the front bench in the Senate. Senator Minchin, Senator Abetz, Senator Coonan, Senator Ronaldson, Senator Brandis and Senator Johnson all nailed their colours to the Work Choices mast in 2006, and it is clear to all of us looking on that they are squirming as the legislation comes into this place. You all believed in Work Choices then and you all believe in it now. Your leader asked you to die in a ditch for this policy in 2007 and it would appear that you are now being asked to die in a ditch for this policy a second time. I say that because those opposite are ideological fantasists on the issue of industrial relations. Senator Fisher said only moments ago that business has been seduced into silence, that the government has cleverly invited business in and on that basis business remains mute. You imagine yourselves sitting at the top of an ideological vanguard representing the thousands of silent antiunionists when, of course, it all exists only in your imaginations.

Senators opposite need to recognise that the tide of opinion has turned against their radical, neoliberal views on deregulating the labour market, not just in Australia but around the world. In the United States, Barack Obama was a sponsor in the Senate of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions without employer harassment. He continues to support that bill today as President of the United States. President Obama said recently:

In this country, we believe that if the majority of workers in a company want a union, they should get a union.

Whether we look at the United States or the European Union, those opposite are alone and isolated, out on an ideological limb. Their only ally in denying the basic rights of employees is the Chinese Communist Party, and I hope they enjoy the company.

It will be very interesting to see what amendments those opposite intend putting before the Senate. Mr Turnbull is trying to wriggle out of his commitment by claiming that the bill now before us goes beyond the mandate that the government was given in 2007, that we are somehow pulling a swifty on the Australian people by bringing in a bill that gives more to the unions and less to business than we promised. He hopes this allegation will give him the pretext he needs for opposing the bill, or at least a pretext for proposing wrecking amendments—amendments that go to the substance of the bill and not merely to the operation of the bill.

It takes a fair amount of gall for those opposite to accuse us of bringing in major pieces of legislation without a mandate. What mandate did the Howard government have for the 2006 Work Choices legislation? None whatever. They made no mention at the 2004 election of their secret plan to strip away workers’ rights and force all Australian workers onto individual contracts. They deceived the Australian electorate, just as they did in 1996 when Mr Howard said he would never ever introduce a GST. In contrast we have an absolutely cast iron mandate for this bill. This bill does not go beyond that mandate. The Deputy Prime Minister has been adamant that the bill will reflect the policy we took to the election, no more and no less.

Let me be specific about some of the provisions of the bill. Firstly, the bill does not reintroduce pattern bargaining. It is curious that those opposite should claim that it does. I thought those opposite were in favour of pattern bargaining. Why did I think this? Because under Work Choices, hundreds if not thousands of workers in various industries were presented with identical AWAs and told to sign them if they wanted to keep their jobs. The pretence that these agreements represented a unique interplay between the employer and the individual and that each agreement was tailored to individual circumstances is a fantasy. The reality is that each of those AWAs was a carbon copy of the next. This was pattern bargaining and the real supporters of pattern bargaining sit opposite.

Secondly, this bill does not allow the charging of bargaining fees to nonunion members—despite the claims of those opposite. Once again, there is a curious line of questioning from those opposite. Bargaining fees operate on the principle of user pays. This is a principle that those opposite have been happy to apply to almost every other circumstance they have encountered, whether it be VSU legislation or other issues of government services. So as far as those opposite are concerned, whether user pays is a good thing or not depends on who is paying whom for what service.

Thirdly, the bill does not return to the past on the issue of union right of entry to workplaces, which Senator Abetz pontificated about earlier today. In 2007 Labor promised that we would strike a balance between the right of employees to be represented by unions and the right of employers to run their businesses. We have delivered on that commitment. To gain access to a workplace, union representatives will have to hold a permit and give 24 hours notice. There are other conditions there that are important and that apply and will continue to apply and which are consistent with the commitments of the party and the Deputy Prime Minister.

The great majority of Australian trade unionists, like the great majority of Australian businesses, know that this bill represents a fair compromise between the conflicting interests that exist in the world of industrial relations. This bill was not designed to give either trade unions or business organisations everything they wanted. It was designed to enable Australian workers and Australian businesses to resolve workplace issues through good faith negotiations, and to come to legally binding agreements. Where an issue cannot be resolved, the bill creates an independent umpire, Fair Work Australia.

This bill provides fairness and security to Australian workers and their families, and flexibility to Australian businesses. It conforms absolutely to the mandate which we were given by the Australian people in 2007. Those opposite have no excuse, no pretext, no mandate to oppose this bill or to introduce wrecking amendments. Mr Turnbull recognised this in November when he gave his pledge not to oppose this bill. Now Mr Turnbull and those opposite want to wriggle out of that pledge, but they have no grounds for doing so, and the Australian people will judge them harshly if they block or obstruct this bill.