Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to continue my contribution in this chamber on the Fair Work Bill 2008. This bill is of course based on the corporations power, not the conciliation and arbitration power as was previous industrial relations legislation in this country. This means that the new workplace relations system will cover all employees of employers who are trading corporations. Awards will no longer be the result of the arbitration of interstate industrial disputes but common rules for industries or occupations. Also, unions will not have to apply to vary every award each year for a national wage case.

I now turn to some of the main issues that I have heard my colleagues opposite raise. Perhaps two most significant areas were raised during the hearings of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee. Bear in mind that, out of all of the chapters of the legislation and all of the changes that are proposed under this system, it is interesting that the opposition chose to home in on the right of entry and access to records. Let me address those two areas. The Work Choices legislation clearly marginalised unions—there is no doubt about that—and it clearly alienated workers in the workplace who wanted to or would have liked to join a union. Work Choices clearly impinged on the employee’s freedom of association rights, but the Fair Work Bill enshrines in law what was allowed before Work Choices came into force, though with strict rules regulating it. It gives right of entry for unions to hold discussions with members and potential members, and this cannot be removed by a non-union agreement. There is no such concept as a union or a non-union agreement under the Fair Work Bill. It states that employers must respect an employee’s right to be represented and enhances protections for freedom of association. It ensures that rooms for meetings during workplace visits must be fit for purpose and not be intended to intimidate and discourage attendance.

My office received complaints regarding a workplace in the seat of Solomon, where a trade union official visiting a workplace in Palmerston was invited to sit in what was no more than the cleaner’s closet in order to try and meet with trade union members. Under this bill that will not occur. A submission to the Senate inquiry into the Fair Work Bill by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia detailed an instance where a union organiser was directed to meet workers in the female toilets area, forcing the organiser to stand in the doorway of the toilets in order to have access to female workers at that workplace. This legislation will ensure that ridiculous and inhumane situations such as those experienced by trade union organisers, delegates and their members around this country do not happen again.

The right of entry provisions in the bill were a point of contention. As I said, that was brought up by employers during our Senate hearings. We heard that some employers see union involvement in the workplace as potentially destructive, either by unions competing with one another for potential members or simply by unions being able to enter the workplace. The committee majority believes, and I agree, that this concern is unfounded. There is no evidence, and there was no evidence provided, to show that that is the case. In fact, we had evidence to the contrary. Section 480 of the bill states:

… establish a framework for officials of organisations to enter premises that balances:

(a)

the right of organisations to represent their members in the workplace, hold discussions with potential members and investigate suspected contraventions of:

(i)

this Act and fair work instruments …

It also balances:

(b)

the right of employees to receive, at work, information and representation from officials of organisations; and

(c)

the right of occupiers of premises and employers to go about their business without undue inconvenience.

This bill does that; it balances the rights of the trade union organisation, the rights of the employee in a workplace to seek to be represented by that trade union and the rights of the employer—quite legitimately so—to not have their business interrupted during the day or during the evening for that matter. Throughout the committee hearing process, we did not hear any substantial evidence to the contrary. In the first instance, there are strict compliance rules that unions must follow if they wish to enter a workplace. The legislation specifically states the entry rules that unions must comply with. These rules include that, if a union wants to enter the workplace, the individual must be a valid permit holder, must provide the employer with at least 24 hours notice and must comply with the conditions on entry. The bill protects and puts in place what Work Choices did away with: an organisation’s right to represent its members in their workplace, an employee’s right to be represented by their union and the employer’s right to be able to continue to conduct their business without interruption.

It is no secret that the former government sought to eradicate unions from the workplace. It is not a line that is popularly swallowed by the majority of people out there. A lot of people may not choose to join a union, but a lot of people certainly respect and appreciate the work that trade unions do. Work Choices proved, though, that the clear intention and main aim of one of those bills was to diminish the effectiveness of trade unions representing their members. Work Choices thoroughly restricted union entry and inspection rights, with the aim of preventing unions from accessing and helping their members in the workplace. It even removed an employee’s right to meet with their union in their workplace if they were covered by an AWA or a non-union agreement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions point out in their submission to the Senate committee:

The right of workers to have access to their representatives is recognised by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as an integral element of the right of workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The right-of-entry provision in this bill ensures that this right is protected. Unions have a proven history of helping their members ensure that their rights and entitlements are protected. In order to achieve this, unions must have access to their members in their workplace, and this bill will guarantee that.

I will now just touch on access to records, another area that was raised during the Senate’s hearings. The committee heard from employers voicing concerns that allowing unions access to employee records would breach the privacy of non-union members or of the members themselves. There is the view among some employers that, under this legislation, unions are given free reign access to employee records and that that is open to abuse. That view is, in fact, incorrect. If you read the legislation, you will see that there are very strict rules that unions must comply with when accessing employee records. With regard to the second concern, I quote the committee majority report:

The committee heard of no instance—

absolutely no instance; on the committee hearing days that I attended, when I asked employers to provide me with examples of where access to employees’ records had been abused, nobody could provide me with examples of that—

of misuse or abuse of employee records …

No allegations were put before us. The majority report goes on to say:

The committee majority also notes that the protections for personal information are stronger and more comprehensive under the Fair Work Bill than under WorkChoices and there are also heavier penalties for the unauthorised use or disclosure of employee records.

During the Senate committee hearing on the 27 January, I asked an advocate from the Queensland Council of Unions if, to their knowledge, there had been a misuse of records obtained by trade union officials in Queensland. The response from Ms Deborah Ralston was this:

No, and what is important to bear in mind, as I indicated earlier, is that in the Queensland context authorised officers are not subject to a fit and proper person test. Yet the authorised officers that operate within the Queensland environment indirectly apply such a test because they adhere to very high standards in relation to the rights and responsibilities they have in accessing a work site.

I then asked again:

So you are not aware of any allegation or case or proceedings or complaints whereby a person has misused employee information?

I asked if anybody was aware of any allegation, case, proceeding or complaint whereby a person had misused employee information, and the answer was no. Union access to employee records was in place prior to Work Choices; the government has simply protected this in legislation and, in fact, gone further. This government has put in place strict rules that unions must follow if they wish to access employee records.

The Fair Work Bill before us today balances the needs of employers, employees and unions. This bill will ensure that Australia is competitive and prosperous without compromising workplace rights and guaranteed minimum standards. It will ensure that employees’ freedom of association in the workplace is protected. But it will also ensure that employers and employees have access to transparent, clear and simple information about their rights and responsibilities. On that basis, I commend this bill to the Senate.