Debate resumed from 4 June.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [10.38]: I oppose the Industrial Relations Bill on the basis that it is not only ill conceived but ill advised. It is an economy-wrecking piece of legislation that takes New South Wales back to the days of Norm Gallagher and the Builders Labourers Federation. This bill is a retrograde step of reform in New South Wales. This piece of legislation should be well analysed by the million or so unemployed people across Australia, which is the legacy left by the Keating Government. Those unemployed people should look at the industrial relations policies that the previous Prime Minister implanted in this country. This bill takes us back two or three generations to accommodate the promises made to unions by the current New South Wales Government. Welcome back to the days of Norm Gallagher and the BLF, the beast of thuggery which was recently taken over by the CFMEU - the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. That thuggery is taking place in the union movement in New South Wales right under the wing of the CFMEU. This legislation has been introduced to accommodate the wishes, promises and undertakings given by Premier Bob Carr to those union leaders who funded Labor's campaign in the last State election.

The proposed legislation is partly a product of the transformation of the Builders Labourers Federation into the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and its subsequent return to the thuggery of the past. The bill will do immense damage to the normal calm, sensible and rational debate that occurred on State awards under the previous Government's industrial relations policy. The legislation seeks to undo all of the revolutionary work introduced by the coalition Government between 1988 and 1995. The legislation introduced in the upper House by John Fahey, the Minister for Industrial Relations of that time - and it took forever to pass through that House - resulted in some of the most revolutionary, advanced and modern industrial relations policies seen in the western world for a long time.

Parts of the industrial relations legislation introduced by the previous Government were adopted by the Federal Government, which viewed that legislation as industrial relations progress and as
Page 2540
the way to go. The Australian Labor Party has been unprotesting, if I could use that word. In the industrial relations revolution realm the Government has been under pressure from the unions for some time now, ever since it was elected a little over 12 months ago, to introduce this measure to protect the interests particularly of senior union officials who trot around the workplaces with their so-called unfettered, ungoverned right to enter non-union workplaces and attempt to intimidate the people who work there. There is no question that Australia waited for decades for the Greiner-Murray inspired industrial relations revolution, which was applauded by employers and employees across the country. One has to ask why the unions are losing their membership in droves. Undoubtedly, the intimidatory and thuggish tactics used by unions in the workplace, particularly in non-union workplaces, have alienated the work force throughout this country.

I can remember the first revolutionary industrial relations legislation being introduced in Australia, I think in 1976, when the current Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. Many honourable members will recall the events that followed the introduction of that legislation. Honourable members may also recall that the current Minister for Defence, Ian McLachlan - who was at that time President of the National Farmers Federation - took up the case of Mudginberri with regard to secondary boycotts. In those days that action was seen to be revolutionary. Here was a national lobby group in the form of the NFF taking advantage of legislation which had been introduced by the government of the day, and that group pursued the issue through the courts and won. The Trade Practices Act was substantially amended by the incoming Hawke and Keating Governments, to the discredit of those who claimed that such an industrial relations policy would gain peace and tranquillity in the workplace. This proposed legislation will go nowhere towards obtaining any sort of peace amongst workers in the workplace. I question the motives of the Government in introducing this legislation.

How can the Government justify a measure which allows union thugs to enter non-union workplaces? That is a thing of the past, and it is not acceptable in today's society. Australians live in a free and democratic country, and have the right to decide whether union officials should attend their workplaces. In very recent times - as I am sure the Minister will recollect - representatives of the CFMEU entered timber mills along the south coast of New South Wales - not at the invitation of the employers or the employees but of their own volition - and used intimidating tactics on the employees to try to encourage them to join their unions. The representatives were told where to go by the workers at that workplace - as they should have been.

I find it intolerable that the Industrial Relations Bill in its objects talks about discrimination. One of its objects is to prevent and eliminate discrimination in the workplace. No ticket, no start - that surely must be one of the earliest acts of discrimination. Any form of intimidation which discriminates against those people who choose not to become a member of a union is discrimination, and breaches the objects of the bill. Opposition members may well scoff at what I am saying, but increasing numbers of people are leaving the union movement for that very reason. If honourable members opposite do not believe me, they should ask about union numbers. Workers are leaving their unions at a rapid rate. Honourable members opposite are slow learners, and they may well take joy in the Government's present position. However, I assure the Minister that the people in the south-east will well remember what the Government has done to the timber industry, and will long remember this legislation, which will reduce the prosperity and productivity of companies affected by it.

I go back to the objects of the legislation. One object of the Industrial Relations Bill is to encourage and facilitate co-operative workplace reform and equitable, innovative and productive workplace relations. Union thugs bowling their way into any premises where non-union labour is employed will not do anything to encourage and facilitate a cooperative workplace. Such behaviour would amount to extreme intimidation. The proposed legislation will cause on-site disputes. This is the Government's legislation, and there is no stepping back from it - the Government owns it and will wear it for many years to come. I am further amused by the objects of the legislation which talk about encouraging improved productivity. Surely, the sort of dispute that will arise from this legislation will not result in an attempt "to promote efficiency and productivity in the economy of the State". The honourable member for Barwon is quite correct when he says it is a joke, because it is a joke. Employers who are currently in their workplaces trying to create jobs for young Australians will not be encouraged by this legislation. Opposition members encourage productivity and prosperity in business, for the very reason that we want to motivate and enthuse those employers to create job opportunities for young Australians. Such motivation was not evident under the Keating Government regime, nor will it be under this State Labor Government. The Government talks about encouraging productivity. The Opposition talks about competitiveness, and dreams of an industrial peace that is not possible under this measure. The aims and objects of the legislation are alien, and detrimental generally to the economy of the State. The Opposition acknowledges that the keys to prosperity and full-time employment are industrial peace, competitiveness and productivity, which can be generated only through harmony between employer and employee in the workplace.

Page 2541

This archaic, troglodyte mentality legislation is the product of the minds of those union officials who see power, intimidation and thuggery as their tools. They drafted this legislation, which will result in the destruction of the encouraging elements that emerged after the Greiner-Murray Government introduced its effective and efficient industrial legislation. Australia lives in an international highly competitive marketplace. It must be more productive and efficient if it wishes to produce, sell, distribute and market its products competitively throughout the world. This piece of legislation will go a long way in destroying the marketing edge that this country has had during the regime of the preceding industrial legislation introduced by the Greiner-Murray Government. At the estimates committee last Friday the Minister admitted that Australian ports, particularly the Port of Sydney, were well below the productivity levels of the ports of Auckland, Singapore and other competitive ports, for the very reason enunciated in this legislation, that is, they are not productive, efficient or competitive. Therefore, we have to lift our game, change our practices and have legislation in place to encourage us to be more productive and competitive.

This bill will do untold damage to the relations we have begun to establish with our international trading partners. In the past few years it has been established that Australia can control its industrial relations. This legislation hands back to the Norm Gallaghers, and to unions like the Builders Labourers Federation, powers that the Opposition believes should be in the hands of employees and employers, especially employers and tradespeople in the productive sectors in this country who can conduct enterprise agreements with their employees without this load of nonsense. What an absolute waste of paper. Here we have a government that claims it is introducing new business into the State. Welcome to the new state of industrial relations!

People coming on board will expect reasonable industrial relations in this State. This type of legislation will turn them away, back to Victoria and Queensland. The bill should be further scrutinised by the community, by the upper House and by those people in this place who purport to represent the working people of Australia. All that the Government is doing with this legislation is taking away the jobs of employees. I call on the House to throw it in the dustbin, where it belongs.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [10.52]: What is surprising is that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation spoke for 15 minutes in his second reading speech, in which he acknowledged that debate on the bill in the upper House occupied about 32 hours. I will touch on the role of the unions in the enterprise bargaining process and on the former Prime Minister's comments that he strongly believes in enterprise bargaining and that that is the only way to make Australia competitive, especially among countries in the South-East Asia Pacific Basin. As the honourable member for Monaro said, New South Wales will lose its competitive edge by lack of agreement on reforms proposed in the upper House relating to enterprise bargaining and the process of achieving it. Turning to the role of unions, the bill provides a payback for the Australian Labor Party. Last week I spoke about the union payback following the Gyles royal commission. At the sole request of the union movement, the building industry task force was disbanded.

The union movement pays the wages of the Australian Labor Party. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the ALP has had to cave in to union demands, despite former Prime Minister Keating's acknowledgment of the need for legislative amendments contrary to those demands, and despite the role of enterprise bargaining worldwide. The honourable member for Gosford, who is shadow minister for industrial relations, and other honourable members raised their concerns about the proposed right of entry to premises to inspect personal and private records. I thought that the Australian Labor Party valued privacy. If I am not mistaken, the Government proposed to reintroduce its brilliant privacy and data protection bill because it was dissatisfied with the bill introduced by the honourable member for Eastwood. How can the Government justify an alleged right to enter premises to inspect personal and private records of people who are not union members in the face of the Government's intention to support privacy legislation? The Government's move stands in marked contrast to Labor philosophy evident in privacy and data protection legislation endorsed by the Opposition. The Minister did not touch on that point in his second reading speech, as brief as it was. Perhaps in his reply or at the Committee stage he may cover that specific issue, bearing in mind his Government's privacy and data protection proposals.

Preference clauses mean no ticket no start. On 28 September last year the Daily Telegraph Mirror heralded Mr Carr's new industrial laws as requiring workers to obtain a union ticket first. No-one denies the right of unions to participate in enterprise bargaining debates, but unions should not be accorded preferential treatment in the processes of industrial democracy in New South Wales or elsewhere in Australia if this nation is to grow. This legislation will set New South Wales back many years, as many members have said, including the honourable member for Northcott, who spoke in his excellent speech about the history of industrial relations in this State. The honourable member described how Premier John Fahey spent about six weeks in the upper House arguing for reforms that were eventually widely accepted and earmarked New South Wales as a leader in industrial relations at that time.

This bill is a return to the bad old days of reduced productivity, unjustifiable preference for union-only job starts, and union rule. Last year I examined in some detail the Westmead nurses and
Page 2542
Westmead staff specialists enterprise agreements, which were reached after much consultation prior to these laws. I spoke to the Hon. Patricia Staunton in another place about those agreements, and indeed an enormous amount of work was undertaken in relation to them. One can always recognise the need for improvement, but those agreements are regarded as good working documents and were reached without the need for legislation such as this; they were reached after good negotiation between the hospital, the nurses and the staff specialists. Finalisation of the agreements took a great deal of time and involved all parties coming together to negotiate under John Fahey's laws. It is hard to understand why someone of Patricia Staunton's standing would consider this legislation necessary. New South Wales will lose its competitive advantage to other States. It was only earlier this week that the Premier said that New South Wales was in for a boom - in fact, Sunday's papers contained a double-page spread showing all the projects on the table.

Mr Jeffery: It lasted five minutes. It was a five-minute wonder.

Mr KINROSS: That is correct, it was five minutes of economic sunshine - a five-minute wonder, rather like the Premier's eighth wonder; the Opera House. As a result of this legislation New South Wales will lose a substantial number of projects. It is clear that already other States are gaining substantially through their gross State product, with reduced labour costs and overheads. One has only to consider the rate of growth in Queensland and the poor performance of New South Wales, as demonstrated by a comparison of economic indicators between the States after the budget was brought down by the Treasurer a few weeks ago. The economic indicators were frightening for New South Wales, not only in terms of the underlying deficit but also in the general standing of New South Wales in relation to other States.

I turn to other provisions in the legislation. One has to ask why the Government would not accept the appropriateness of secrecy provisions for an enterprise bargaining agreement. The inclusion of secrecy provisions would be a justified amendment. The non-inclusion of a secrecy provision defies explanation. The Opposition's proposed amendment, which was discussed in another place, would have allowed, under proposed section 36, employees covered by an enterprise agreement to approve that agreement by secret ballot. Inclusion of a secrecy provision would be preferable to a return to the standover tactics that unions have used in the past. The general lack of consultation and the haste with which the legislation has been introduced stand in marked contrast to the consultative style of this side of the House.

In November last year I spent a couple of days in Sydney talking to a number of organisations, ranging from the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales to the Restaurant and Catering Association, the Association of Independent Schools, the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and a range of other industry groups. The purpose of the consultation was to enable the Opposition to put before the House the various concerns of those groups about this legislation. It was also of benefit in the drafting of proposed amendments, which I shall not go into now. The level of consultation of the Labor Government is in stark contrast to that undertaken by the Opposition, and there is more than one example of the Government's lack of consultation. There was a marked lack of consultation on changes to the role of the Governor and there has been a decided lack of consultation on this legislation. I note that today the legislation is subject to the provisions of Standing Order 100. Although there should be full participation in debate on such important legislation, the Government intends, in effect, to gag the debate on this bill.

I wish to speak also about dismissal laws. It is widely recognised by employers and employees, especially with the high rate of unemployment in this State, that dismissal laws make an employer think twice before hiring additional employees. Dismissal laws are a disincentive to employment. Why would an employer go through the process of conducting interviews and then hiring employees when legislative provisions limit the productivity of the workplace? New South Wales has experienced difficulties presented by stupid dismissal laws, and the Prime Minister has referred to some of those. There have been, for example, occasional instances of stealing offences by employees, which have clearly resulted in loss of productivity to the employer - the State Rail Authority is the instance that comes to mind - and yet the employee is reinstated. I think of another example: any employer with any commonsense would not employ someone, given the tortuous process that has to be followed under the dismissal provisions, including the various warnings involved.

Opposition members are concerned about dismissal provisions, the right of absolute veto of enterprise agreements and - for the want of a better expression - the general concern about the decriminalisation of victimisation in relation to various practices. Time does not permit a detailed discussion about the bill. If Opposition members are lucky, there may be a chance for a more detailed discussion at the Committee stage. I conclude by repeating that it is frightening to see a return to the bad old days at a time when New South Wales should be encouraging economic growth. The Premier has spoken about a number of projects for the future but there is no incentive for further employment.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [11.07]: It is with great pleasure that I shall speak about this legislation. As honourable members know, I spoke about this legislation in my inaugural speech, having waited a long time for its introduction. It is a great shame that the workers of New South Wales have
Page 2543
had to wait a whole year for the introduction and installation of the legislation. The Parliament is finally close to the conclusion of debate on these bills, and it is with much expectation that workers are waiting for the Parliament to give effect to the legislation. The Industrial Relations Bill keeps intact the very important system of awards. It is only through awards that workers have a minimum base from which they can negotiate, which is very important. It has been suggested by the Opposition that somehow having a minimum base affects the flexibility of workers and employers in negotiations. Awards are designed to establish a minimum base. They are designed to give people who cannot establish a base for themselves a minimum position from which they can extend.

The bill also protects the very important element of collective bargaining. Speakers from the other side of the House have spoken extensively on the right of individuals to enter contracts, a right which all of us respect. We have to constantly remind members on the other side of the House about the Liberal philosophy that underpins their ideology because they often get it wrong. Contracts should be of mutual benefit, with both parties agreeing on an outcome. If there is an element of duress or pressure in the process the contract struck will not be in the mutual interests of those involved. That was recognised in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in part of the twentieth century. But this does not seem to be recognised by the Opposition. People entering contracts should have a fair bargaining position. To achieve an outcome which is fair and not a result of duress or exploitation, with both parties benefiting, both sides should have similar bargaining power. Only in that way can the outcome be fair. An unfair outcome is obviously not of mutual benefit and therefore is not consistent with the Liberal philosophy that members opposite pretend they support. What they actually support is maintenance of high levels of profit and exploitation of workers as often as that can possibly be achieved.

Mr Richardson: Do you really believe that?

Mr TRIPODI: Yes, I do. The reason the bill is so important to me and my constituents is that I see examples of this type of exploitation every day. Two days ago two workers came into my office and told me that they had been sacked five years ago from Rothmans on a trumped-up charge. They proved in court that the charge was wrong but Rothmans refused to reinstate them because under the present law there is no obligation for them to be reinstated - despite the fact that the charge had been trumped up and an independent court had found them innocent of the charge.

Mr Richardson: What have they been doing for five years?

Mr TRIPODI: They have been unemployed for five years. They have been looking for work.

Mr Richardson: They could not find another job in five years?

Mr TRIPODI: That is right. The honourable member may find it surprising that someone could not find work for five years. But these are migrant workers: one is Portuguese and the other is Russian. This sort of thing happens all the time. Maybe they have the audacity to expect to be paid a proper amount when they enter the process of negotiation. Unions serve as cheap sources of industrial representation. For $2 or $3 dollars a week workers have access to legal services which will not cost them $1,500. The two workers who saw me on Monday paid $1,500 to solicitors in an effort to get their jobs back. They received a letter stating that because of a recent decision of the High Court of Australia - because of the laws in this State - they are no longer entitled to get their jobs back, even though the charges have not been proved in court. They are out of pocket $1,500, which may not be much to the constituents of honourable members opposite but it represents a major hole in the pocket of these two men and affects their ability to survive.

Unions provide a very cheap source of industrial representation. It is a big deal to visit a lawyer, a frightening experience. It is an even larger challenge for workers to front up to a court on their own. Most people would find it daunting. Unions provide a cheap, accessible, friendly way of informing people about their entitlements and representing workers in forums so that their rights may be enforced. If workers have to act as individuals in negotiating contracts with an employer they will be crushed - no other word can describe it.

The bill sets minimum standards. It does not say that people cannot negotiate above those minimum standards. The processes of negotiation with employers have not been replaced. The legislation recognises that enterprise bargaining provides productivity improvements, which are important to Australia's economic advancement. But the bill ensures that people who will not be negotiating on an equal basis will also get a reasonable outcome and that their contracts will not be the result of exploitation or duress, but the result of a fair process. This is made possible by providing minimum conditions in an award with an independent arbitrator and having workers represented by experts.

Workers are experts in their work; they are not experts in negotiation, and they are not informed about their rights and entitlements. Workers are not expert in the legal complexities of the negotiation process. For a measly $2 or $3 dollars a week unions give workers access to cheap, intelligent and valued advice - on tap. Union members are then not ripped off by a lawyer who may, after receiving a large fee, simply write a letter saying that the worker is not entitled to anything. In such a situation the worker has no recourse. However, members of unions have recourse through the ballot box if they are not happy with the service provided by their organisation.

Page 2544

The bill will also provide a shelter for New South Wales workers, we hope, against the provisions of the legislation which is currently before the Australian Parliament. Those provisions reflect the ideology of coalition members, who do not understand the kind of provocation, industrial action and rebellion that will occur when the Federal legislation is introduced. Honourable members opposite talk about productivity. There would need to be a lot of increased productivity through the elimination of restrictive work practices to make up for five or 10 working days a year lost because of industrial action. The real productivity benefits in the 1980s and early 1990s came from elimination of industrial action.

The peaceful process of determining wage outcomes under the accord brought such productivity benefits. We came to realise this in the mid-1990s. The accord was not perfect. Australia lost many opportunities in the early 1980s with the depreciation of the Australian dollar. Workplace flexibility was not sufficient to maximise the benefit to Australia. Towards the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s enterprise agreements became an integral part of industrial relations and Australia achieved higher levels of productivity because it exploited the opportunities arising from currency movements. The economic make-up of the economy also changed. It is very important that workers, such as outworkers and migrant workers, many of whom live in my electorate, are given some avenue of recourse or access to advice as the minimum standard from which they can begin to negotiate. It is not uncommon that in workplaces - garages, sheds or the back of industrial estates in my electorate - workers are paid $5 a day.

Mr Slack-Smith: It is a disgrace.

Mr TRIPODI: It is a disgrace. It happens because people do not have industrial representation. They do not have a union.

Mr Slack-Smith: Do something about it.

Mr TRIPODI: The Government is doing something about it and that is why the unions are to be given the right to access workplaces on almost no notice to fine employers who are responsible for exploiting workers. They will be made to pay the price. The honourable member for Gosford said this bill has been introduced to stem the haemorrhage that occurred in trade union membership in the 1980s under a Federal Labor Government. In reality, the haemorrhage in union membership occurred because during the 1980s and 1990s workers felt safe working under the industrial laws of a Federal Labor Government. Workers had a security net, a welfare net, that they could rely on. As a consequence they no longer needed to take out insurance against industrial exploitation and, therefore, union membership declined.

Recently I was speaking to a union organiser who told me that unions cannot sign up people quickly enough. People are rushing to join unions at the moment because of insecurity in the work force. Members opposite are supposed to understand the basics of economics. With insecurity there are low levels of consumer spending, low levels of investment, and a general slowing down of the economy. If the majority of workers feel insecure about a continued income stream, obviously they will increase their savings and try to insulate themselves against that insecurity and against any unforeseen circumstances. When workers face insecurity, when jobs are cut and workers feel threatened, the whole Australian economy suffers. It is only when workers have a sense of security that they can work, earn, spend and plan for the future. That is what legislation such as this is all about. During the 1980s workers felt insecure and did not take out an insurance ticket of union membership. But now there is a rush to rejoin unions because workers need that insurance to protect themselves against what they see as a very hard future. [Time expired.]

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.22]: The Government has made out a less than compelling case for introducing this new Industrial Relations Bill. Indeed, it is only five years since the previous Government's Industrial Relations Bill was introduced and passed after significant trials, tribulations and enormous community consultation. The legislation is working very well, with something like 500 enterprise agreements signed in 1994. Clearly employers and employees are benefiting from and supporting that system. This new mammoth bill - nearly 300 pages - will overturn the good work done in the last five years. As many speakers on this side of the House have pointed out, the Industrial Relations Bill is not about economic growth; it is not about improving Australia's international competitiveness; it is all about looking after Labor's mates. Honourable members heard from the honourable member for Fairfield his rationale for introducing the bill, that it was all back to the bad old days of class war. At one stage I thought he was going to invoke the image of Blake's dark satanic mills and the Tolpuddle Martyrs because that is the era in which he is living.

This legislation is about paying back the Labor Council for its generous support of the Labor Party before and during the last election campaign, and for not foreclosing on the debt that the Labor Party owed it for Sussex Street. Obviously that support demanded a reward and this legislation is the 30 pieces of silver demanded by the Labor Council. From the point of view of the Carr Government the passage of this bill has been made even more urgent by the election of the Howard Government. John Howard and Peter Reith have flagged their intention to radically overhaul the industrial relations law Federally and to provide a more competitive workplace in which businesses can thrive. The new Federal industrial laws will allow the productivity that the honourable member for Fairfield talked about to become a goal towards which both employers and employees aspire. Under that new
Page 2545
environment Australia can become a more prosperous nation and start on the long, arduous task of repaying some of the huge $185 billion foreign debt that was racked up during the Hawke and Keating years.

I have great concern that this Industrial Relations Bill will turn back the clock and undo the good work that the Howard Government is doing. There are approximately one million workers under State awards. This legislation will be the lead in the saddlebags that will drag Australia backwards. This occurred in Victoria, and those of us who were in business during the Cain and Kirner years will remember the negative effect that the slowdown in the Victorian economy had on businesses and the profitability on businesses if they were operating on a national basis. The Labor Party has had other compelling concerns and they have been spoken about by the honourable member for Fairfield. Regardless of what he said about people rushing to join the union movement, there has been a decline in union membership in this State from almost 50 per cent in 1983, when the Federal Labor Government was first elected, to about 35 per cent now. That is indicative of the fact that the world has moved on. Australia has been opened up to the chill winds of international competition. Businesses that have not adapted to those massive changes within the economy, that have not restructured, or introduced enterprise agreements or improved awards, have gone under.

This has to be considered in the context of an 8 per cent unemployment rate in this State and 10 per cent in other States, and it is a matter of considerable concern. What I have said is backed up by comments made by the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, in December last year when he said that it was his intention to promote the soon-to-be-reformed New South Wales system as a viable alternative to the new Industrial Relations Act that the Howard Government would introduce, if it were elected. The Hon. Jeff Shaw warned that New South Wales would take High Court action to block any attempt by a Howard Government to prevent workers moving into the State system. That statement is indicative of the provisions of this bill and the concerns that employers and businesses have about it.

Businesses want competitiveness and flexibility in the workplace. An example is the application made by the restaurant and catering industry to eliminate casual and penalty rates for those working on a Sunday. Weekends are a peak period for the restaurant trade and if penalty rates apply, the added cost can discourage people from dining at a restaurant. In America, penalty rates do not apply in the hospitality industry for employees working at weekends and at night. I want to touch briefly on the New Zealand experience. New Zealand has been identified in a recent survey as one of the three most competitive nations in the world. It has wrought an economic miracle that Australia has yet to emulate. I believe that in the same survey Australia ranked twenty-fifth and is still going down. Volume 9, issue No. 8, of a document entitled "Industrial Relations and Management Letter", dated September 1992 - shortly after the new Employment Contracts Act 1991 was introduced in New Zealand - stated:

There are some important Lessons for Government, Businesses, Employer Organisation and Unions from the N.Z. experiment.

In relation to increased employee awareness about the need for greater competitiveness and real flexibility, plus the ability of many business operations to reduce their costs by changing penalty rate provisions, Australia is miles behind. One senior executive is quoted in the document as follows:

Australia is where New Zealand was a number of years ago. As a country, we have not yet faced up to the hard reality of the changes we have to make if we are to be world competitive. We are still only fiddling around the edges. New Zealand on the other hand, has faced up to the hard realities.

It is clear that the Government has not faced up to the hard realities of life in the late 1990s and into the twenty-first century. It wants to turn back the clock to the bad old days, as the honourable member for Lane Cove remarked. New South Wales will have in place an industrial regime that will inhibit growth, stunt development, militate against workers' benefits and increase unemployment. I was interested to hear members on the other side of the House talk about productivity, and to read the second reading speech and the comments of the Hon. Jeff Shaw prior to the introduction of the bill. We on this side of the House recognise that there ought to be a partnership between workers and employers. In the two most successful post-war economies, Germany and Japan, that partnership is alive and thriving. Workers there recognise that it is in their interests not to send their companies broke; they recognise that it is in their interests to develop new ideas and new work practices, and ways of doing things that are not obstructionist, so that business can prosper and their wages increase.

The level of workers' wages in those two countries is considerably higher than the level of wages in this country, for precisely that reason. That is a lesson that has been learned in New Zealand, where real wage levels are rising as that country has come to grips with the international economy, has become objective, and has recognised that export is not an add-on that export can be the primary concern of a business. The coalition believes that parties should be allowed to negotiate enterprise agreements provided there is an appropriate level of protection for employees. A major concern that the Opposition has with the bill is that unions will be involved at all stages of the process, whether or not the employees or employers want them to be involved. The Opposition believes that there is no need for that third-party involvement, and that it is possible for parties to
Page 2546
resolve the conditions of the enterprise agreement on a mutual basis to their mutual benefit. That is a long way from the image conjured up by the honourable member for Fairfield of the exploitation of workers.

If honourable members on the Government benches had ever bothered to read the excellent book In Search of Excellence they would be aware that the companies that are thriving and going ahead are those in which a partnership exists between employees and the employer, a partnership that is mutually beneficial. That is clearly understood, and suggestions from workers about how things can be improved, on a production line for example, are welcomed by employers. Clause 34(2) of the bill will permit a union to be represented during the approval process, whether or not any of its members are involved. The clause is not restricted to members of unions; the definition of relevant employees includes those who are eligible to become members of a union. The Opposition has serious doubts about questions of privacy and the right of entry of union representatives, because if employees do not want to be members of a union, that is their right. This bill proposes that if there are employees in the workplace who are entitled to become members of a union, that union has an unfettered right of access to that workplace.

Mr Yeadon: What nonsense! They can go there to recruit members. Do not misrepresent the issue.

Mr RICHARDSON: The word "unfettered" has been changed by amendments to the bill in the upper House. Unions will have to give 48 hours in lieu of 24 hours notice. Unfortunately, the Opposition does not believe that even 48 hours is long enough. In the Opposition's view, the unions should not be involved in proceedings of the Industrial Relations Commission and should not be able to sign enterprise agreements if the employees do not want the union to be present. If employees believe they can negotiate an enterprise agreement with their employer to their mutual benefit, there should not be a requirement for a union to be involved in that process. The Opposition believes that that will tend to remove freedom of choice. The union is trying to recruit members, as the Minister said earlier, and turn back that inexorable decline in union membership; and the bill is an example of the Labor Party looking after its mates. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 December 1995, Allen Kohler stated:

. . . the union movement is being systematically rolled by workers in setting up their conditions on an enterprise basis.

That is not happening under New South Wales legislation; it is happening under Federal legislation introduced by Laurie Brereton. [Time expired.]

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [11.37]: I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Industrial Relations on bringing forward the Industrial Relations Bill and for consulting widely with employer bodies, unions and the broader community. The Government is carrying out its election promise that when it attained office it would repeal the Industrial Relations Act introduced by the former coalition Government. It is doing so to ensure that New South Wales maintains its premier position in regard to business and development and, more importantly, to ensure that the workers of this State have a right of participation in the process of enterprise bargaining and a right to have a trade union negotiate on their behalf.

The honourable member for Fairfield referred earlier to the right to have an expert in the field of industrial relations negotiating and participating on behalf of workers so that they might receive a fair return for their increased productivity, and that they are able to enjoy the conditions and standard of living to which they are entitled. In addition, the occupational health and safety rights and responsibilities of employers should be maintained. Honourable members opposite referred to the freedom and rights of individuals to negotiate directly for improvement in their conditions and the appropriate level of remuneration. Of course, in a perfect world that would work out very nicely, but there are legion examples where unprotected workers are exploited. Much was said yesterday about outworkers and the failure of the former Government to stop exploitation in sweat shops, particularly in this city, and to improve the conditions of those workers.

The rates of pay of workers in sweat shops do not allow them to live at a reasonable level; and these workers do not enjoy the conditions that are set down under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That leaves them without the power to negotiate on an even level. Therefore, owners of an enterprise, in negotiating an agreement, could have disproportionate power that would allow them to determine the conditions of the agreement. Without having input from a union and a collective organisation, workers will not achieve a reasonable outcome. When the legislation is passed and becomes law, it will do much to ensure, first, that workers continue to be productive and, second, that their conditions and rights will be protected. I wish to refer briefly to a group of workers in this State who at the moment are facing a sustained attack on their working conditions by Novacoal Australia Pty Limited, a subsidiary of CRA. I had the opportunity to visit these workers and witness the impact on them of potential Howard-Reith Government industrial relations laws. That made me realise all the more why it is so important that this legislation become law.

This State does not want to go down the path followed by the Federal Government. I refer to the miners at the Vickery coalmine, who have been on strike and picketing against CRA for a period of more than 10 months. Some 50 workers are involved at that mine site, which is 24 kilometres from Gunnedah. It is an isolated site and the workers live in Gunnedah, Boggabri or the
Page 2547
surrounding towns; many travel up to 1½ hours each way to and from work. Under their award the workers were required to work 8½-hour shifts. CRA in that area has more than one-third of the State's coal reserves and over a period of time it has embarked on a campaign of pressuring those workers to accept a 12½-hour hot seat changeover process. That has been rejected by the workers and by the union. The company has exerted enormous pressure and in the 12-month period leading up to the workers going on strike on 15 August 1995, 22 members and their families left the area. Rather than cave in to the company, they resigned and moved away from the area; and of course that resulted in a loss of revenue to the town.

The 30 remaining miners have taken sustained action against CRA over that entire period because they do not wish to work 12½-hour shifts, to have their family lives destroyed or to suffer health problems that would arise from working those extended hours contrary to occupation health and safety legislation. Workers across industry who work longer periods experience lack of concentration and reduced productivity. This also results in a greatly increased risk of injury. It is a classic example of a work force placed under pressure by, in this case, a large and powerful subsidiary of a multinational company to accept an erosion in its working conditions. Under the Howard-Reith approach to industrial relations, that situation would be duplicated across the nation.

The industrial relations legislation introduced by the Minister for Industrial Relations and the New South Wales Labor Government affords workers in this State the protection and the right to have a union operate on their behalf. It will give union organisers the right of entry to workplaces and to recruit. However, more importantly, this measure will enable union organisers to examine wages books to ensure that workers are not exploited, that their conditions are upheld and that the occupational health and safety standards accepted for workers in workplaces across this State and nation are maintained.

There is no doubt that the trade union movement in this State is in the forefront of ensuring restructuring, change and participation with workers to ensure that improved productivity takes place. One need only examine the Australian best practice programs and the involvement of workers at the enterprise and workshop level to acknowledge the improvements in work design and outcomes. The Government is committed to that. I have the honour to represent constituents in the Newcastle and Hunter Valley areas and time and again projects in that area come in on time and under budget. That is because of the active participation of the trade union movement, and the cooperation of individual unions, workers and employers in ensuring that productivity targets are reached and that workplace change occurs.

The process involved has been active and participatory. Certainly, the trade union movement has not been backward in ensuring that change occurs in the workplace. We are concerned to lift productivity levels in the workplace, but not at the expense of the wages and conditions of workers and their occupational health and safety. This is in all respects important legislation. It turns back the clock to some degree: it turns it back to the extent that it repeals the Industrial Relations Act that was brought in by the former Government.

That is done in the interests of the productivity and growth of this State, ensuring that workers have their needs represented and that they are not exploited. Women workers, part-time workers, outworkers and workers in the building and other industries and in the factories of this State have the right to seek to improve their conditions and to have unions represent them in bringing about such improvements. This legislation ensures continuity of that right and entrenches the rights of workers in law. I have much pleasure in supporting the bills.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [11.52]: It is with some regret and a great deal of concern that I speak to the Industrial Relations Bill and the cognate bill. I explain that it is with regret that I speak to the bills because I had hoped the Carr-Egan-Knight triumvirate would be able to withstand the blackmail of the union movement and choose not to bring in these bills I had hoped that the Carr Government would place business confidence and labour market flexibility ahead of the need to satisfy the unions. The honourable member for Newcastle said that to some extent this legislation turns back the clock, and he mentioned exploitation of workers. The Industrial Relations Bill is not about exploitation of workers. No doubt members on both sides of the House would be concerned with any instance of exploitation, regardless of who is affected and where it occurs. The bill is actually about abuse of enterprise in this State. I find it absurd to even contemplate the controlling Right faction of the New South Wales Labor Party willingly embracing this cynical legislation, which undoubtedly will prove a defining moment for this Parliament and certainly this Labor Government.

This industrial relations legislation is actually a payback for union support. That has been said a number of times in this debate. The bills are a payback for industrial action in the last year of the Fahey Government, and a payback for union support in the 1995 New South Wales general election and the by-elections since. This legislation is a futile attempt to turn back the tide of labour productivity in Australia, and specifically in New South Wales. It is an attempt to re-establish union power in this State. In that regard I am reminded of a previous occasion on which I watched this sort of legislation coming into force. I am reminded of 1983.

At that time I was working in the aircraft industry in Victoria on a defence project with a company that was designing and building an aircraft for the air force. Labor came to office federally in
Page 2548
March 1983, and the shift of executive power from Canberra to Swanson Street, Melbourne, had to be seen to be believed. In the first few months after the March 1983 election we in the aircraft manufacturing industry heard stories of Ministers being kept on a leash by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I suppose most took that to be largely rhetoric, but it was obvious within six months that those stories were right. I saw enough to convince me that Labor Ministers would not make any significant move without the approval of the ACTU hierarchy.

That instance, which went on for a number of years, proved extremely counterproductive to the project with which I was involved, and the influence was extended. Eventually, union influence extended to workplace democracy experiments in the aircraft manufacturing industry and a number of other industries. In due course, as honourable members would know, those experiments collapsed as Labor Ministers in Canberra were exposed to the real world outside Labor caucus. We saw evidence of that a number of times, as Labor Ministers visited factories, saw what was happening, and were forced to discuss the reality of competing in a modern world. Industry itself was forced to restructure under the pressures of real world competition later in the 1980s. In later years even that great friend of Australian exporters, Bill Kelty, was prodded into thinking about enterprise agreements as opposed to centralised bureaucratic control of labour conditions.

This misguided legislation now in this House takes us back to those ridiculous days of the 1980s when unions were absolutely determined to flex their muscle, and to do so with the support of their mates in the new Federal Labor Government. The legislation before this House is a betrayal of the business community in this State. Those who look at the bills need not wonder why business confidence in this State has slumped. They need not wonder why unemployment and inflation are of concern to business in New South Wales. They need not wonder why the Premier's approval rating wallows in the bilges.

I should now like to contrast the two public leaders who have most influence on New South Wales. John Howard was elected Prime Minister earlier this year with an overwhelming mandate. There can be no doubt that John Howard expected to win, and planned to win, the Federal election. Certainly members on this side of the House and perhaps some members on the other side would agree that John Howard will govern in the best interests of all Australians, and they would acknowledge that he has the unprecedented approval of a huge section of the Australian community.

There is also no doubt that, by contrast, Bob Carr did not expect to win the State election last year. Bob Carr did not plan to win, or expect to win, the State election. He in fact tripped over the line by buying a bare majority of seats. The truth that Bob Carr had lost government before he was sworn in. He had run a risk-everything, high-rolling campaign and was prepared to buy votes anywhere, at any time, at any price. That State election involved the unions. Bob Carr has no mandate for anything in this State, other than the abolition of tolls. He certainly has no mandate to take New South Wales back to the dark ages of union manipulation, back to the days of class warfare. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from honourable members opposite on that matter.

The most outstanding rhetoric delivered to us by the Government on this legislation is a profound statement by the Premier and the Attorney General that they would create fortress New South Wales. I find it difficult to believe that they had thought about using that term before using it, but they did repeat it. Honourable members opposite should be in no doubt that they have no hope whatsoever of building a moat around New South Wales. They should not be fooled into believing that the lone Labor Government in Australia, the lone Government of backward thinkers in Australia, can build itself into a fortress against competitive forces in Australia, in this region or anywhere else in the world. This fortress mentality will not work with its industrial relations legislation or any other part of its socialist agenda.

The Premier's rhetoric will not protect the people of this State from the pressures of competition, but it may delay the benefits. That is the critical factor. We cannot afford Bob Carr as Premier unless he decides to manage in the best interests of the State, not in the best interests of Sussex Street or the Labor Party head office. As with other pieces of legislation introduced by the Government in this Parliament, the Government's consultation on this legislation has been questionable. I am reminded of what happened with Government legislation introduced last year which sought to amend the rate of stamp duty. That legislation was released to the public on a Friday evening and a telephone number was given for consultation. People ringing that telephone number over the weekend - which was the only time available for consultation - were connected to an answering machine. The lack of consultation is clearly reflected in the amendments moved by the Opposition. I think 150 amendments were proposed by the Opposition in the Legislative Council, of which 57 were agreed to; of those, many were accepted by the Government. That is a reflection of the Government's lack of consultation with the business community or anybody else interested in this legislation other than the unions.

As the honourable member for Northcott said earlier in this debate, the Hon. John Fahey introduced historic changes to industrial relations in this State. His changes allowed New South Wales to move forward towards true labour market flexibility and cooperation between all engaged in enterprises. The Parliament must protect the people of this State by rejecting Labor's attempt to impose
Page 2549
a straitjacket on the work ethic in the State. The Government is seeking to undermine enterprise initiative and healthy employee-employer relationships within enterprises. Labor's legislation proposes to allow union storm-troopers to lay siege to business enterprises in New South Wales. The Opposition has proposed changes to the project contract provisions to protect small business and contractors. There is no doubt that if the Government proceeds with its proposed legislation it will strangle those small players in our economy.

Previous speakers in this debate have mentioned the Niland green paper, which argued for an increased enterprise focus on industrial relationships and greater access to the system by individual employees and employers. The proposed legislation undermines these objectives. The Opposition's amendments seek to correct this problem. Labor's legislation allows unions to attack vulnerable businesses through right of entry, regardless of union membership on site. That is clearly an outrage. The business community is greatly concerned about that provision. Once it is further understood in the wider community, it will cause many employers to be enraged with contempt for the Premier. We will see his approval ratings hit rock bottom - they are close to it now. What will be the net effect of this legislation on New South Wales?

Despite the best emotional rhetoric of Government members, this debate is not about class warfare as they have suggested; it is about the momentum for progress in this State. This debate is about the reform process in this State. In March 1995 the coalition left a healthy financial position for New South Wales and a pipeline of reform for implementation. That is what this Parliament is about. Whether we go forwards or backwards, that pipeline of reform has been used up. The only significant legislation we have seen in this Parliament over the last six weeks has been this industrial relations legislation. The decision that has to be made by honourable members today is whether to move New South Wales forwards or to move it backwards into union feudalism and conflict. Honourable members have to decide between institutionalising workplace conflict and motivating the people of New South Wales to work together in pursuit of common interests.

This House must choose either expensive regulation or freedom of choice for employees and employers. Are individuals able to take control of their lives, or must citizens always have Big Brother, in the form of the union hierarchy, peering over their shoulders? We have to decide whether we should build business confidence or undermine employment and economic growth. Should we consolidate the industrial relations club or give power to the people? I note that the honourable member for Cabramatta said in this debate that the legislation has been particularly well received by industrial relations practitioners. Need we say more? I acknowledge that the Opposition would have some difficulty in changing the legislation in this Chamber. But the Opposition does have the opportunity to warn the Government that it is working against the interests of the State. It should consult with the business community and heed their pleas to accept the Opposition's amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Neilly.