Thursday, 18 November 1993

During the early 1990’s Australia was struggling with the transition between rigid industry based workplaces and practices and the quickly emerging small business sector. Industrial relations had been dominated by the “Club” of employers and unions for many decades but the workplace was changing, quickly.

The government recognised this and tried to bring legislation that would support greater flexibility but it still remain committed to ensure unions were protected.

At the time some 47% of the workforce was a union member. Now it is less than 20% with the significant majority of those being government employees such as health and education.

In this speech I warned the government about the changing workplace and highlighted that the legislation would not work in the future – and it has been proven that it hasn’t.

A Short Excerpt

But honourable members opposite do not seem to realise that there are two parts to any industrial relations process: one is the worker providing labour; the other is the employer providing investment. If there is no employer, there is no employee.

Mr EVANS (8.20 p.m.) —Mick Jagger, that elastic example of baby boomer musicians, once recorded a song which, in part, says:

Let’s work, be proud

Stand tall touch the clouds

Men and women be free let’s work

Get down in the dirt let’s work

Get up be free

Get down in the dirt

Take off your shirt

Let’s work be proud.

Listening to this debate on the Industrial Relations Reform Bill, I wonder whether those opposite feel proud that they are encouraging Australians to feel wasted and at the bottom of the labour pile when it comes to negotiating with the majority of Australian employers. I note that Jagger’s song comes from his Sticky Fingers album, which sets the scene for many taking part in this debate.

  I have listened with interest to the speakers opposite as each has risen to support the legislation. I listened with the hope of hearing a proper understanding of economics and what makes the community go around, and I have been disappointed with the result. Not one speaker has understood the very basis of the future of our country; that is, that there is no work for Australians if there are no companies to employ them. That means that there is no work for Australians wishing to maintain their lifestyle; no work for those Australians wanting to care for their families. There is no work for Australians. No employers means no employees.

  Equally as important, as stated by each of the government speakers, no employees means no employers. But is this notion correct? Can a company operate without employees, thus increasing the unemployment queues? The answer to that conundrum, as we move towards the technological age, is simply: yes, it can happen. Our Labor colleagues have not quite come to terms with the fact that those who take the risk of investing money—and we should not be afraid to talk about money—will not do it if investment is made difficult, and why should they?

  Our friends opposite will say, `They have a duty—a moral right to invest their money and employ people’. The reality is that investors, whether they be small business or large business, will not invest and thus employ if it is made difficult for them. It is time that those opposite realised that commercial investment is the basis of our social justice and the ongoing welfare of our community, not the ripping apart of the very fabric of the commercial aspect of our community.

  The world is rapidly changing. Over 200 years ago, with the evolution into the industrial age, the world rapidly changed to industrialisation. Those who took advantage of that time were the capitalists who invested in industrialisation. Those countries wishing to hang on to the old ways and not wanting to change were left behind in the developing world. The need for unions was essential during that period, and they did their job very well, helping the evolution of communities from the agricultural age to the new industrialised world. They worked hard to gain many social justice reforms, and they helped to ensure that our communities were held responsible for the care of our fellow man. Unions had a very important role to play.

  However, their time has passed, because the challenges which they faced, and duly accepted are no longer with us. The unions no longer play the dominant role within the community that they would have us believe. The membership of unions is reducing with no sign of reversal. Why is this the case? It is my view that unions are becoming irrelevant to the majority of those employed. In my view, one of the reasons for this is that their secretaries and their officers have never been on the factory floor. Most union officials come from universities and then move on to politics, and their members are becoming disappointed with the treatment they receive from their so-called union officials. Technology and its new work demands are upon us and, as we move quickly to the technological or knowledge age, we are finding that the union movement is becoming more and more irrelevant.

  As the world’s national boundaries break down we are witnessing an increased flow of information. For instance, it is now possible for a graphic designer in my electorate of Cowan to do in one hour what would have normally taken three days to do, and then he can send it off to anywhere in the world and communicate by computer. How does the union movement intend to compete with employees working to satisfy international clients when the need for structured hours and conditions are no longer there? At this very minute the world is trying to re-centre itself. It is desperately trying to build a new set of rules and values that mesh with the emerging social system—a system which many people do not quite understand. No longer can we allow ourselves to be like ostriches, simply putting our heads in the sand.

  Right now, at the head of every major radio and TV broadcast, we hear and see the issue of values—or, more precisely, the lack of them—being raised. We are microscopically examining our values both in the workplace and at the home to discover how we evolved to the position we are in now, but, more importantly, how to redirect some of the potentially wrong turns that we have taken. We all begin life with a clean slate and pick and choose a variety of values as we approach adulthood. Along the way we change and adapt our values based on circumstances and situations set before us. One might say, `But my values have never changed’—I think that has been evidenced by those opposite during this debate—values like `all bosses rip off their employees’, `all bosses don’t care about their employees’, and `only the union can provide employees safety nets’. I quote from yesterday’s Hansard where the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) was giving an example of these values. He said:

A typical workplace would be a small wholesale company, which employs 20 workers and is non-unionised—

It is probably paying payroll tax. He went on to say:

There are numerous grievances. . . the boss is pretty obnoxious, he has a son on the payroll who sexually harasses some of the . . . staff—that sort of thing happens all the time—

He said that that was a typical workplace. Those opposite have clearly stated that enterprise bargaining came from the union movement. That is absolutely bunkum because this type of employee relationship—enterprise bargaining—was first developed by an American called Demming back in the 1950s when he went to Japan and developed it there. These values of the industrial age that the union movement talks about are quite out of turn. As we move into this new technological age we need a change in values. This enterprise bargaining idea was not the union’s idea but Demming’s idea back in the 50s.

  The development of Japan and its social wealth has been well documented. It started not with the workers but with the employers. So to put forth the myth that enterprise agreements are the idea of the unions is absolute rubbish. The world of business, as any smart business person knows, is that the company’s assets leave at five o’clock every day. If they do not come back the following morning, there are no assets left. The smart employers know that their staff are their major asset. I would think that this is the view of many, or perhaps even most, of the business people in Australia. To think any less is inviting chaos and uncertainty about a company’s viability. A partnership between employees and employer is required, not a confrontationist approach from those with the industrial value that employers are the ones holding back development. We need greater negotiation than the union movement is prepared to have.

  No Australian wants to screw another Australian to the ground. Crooks do, yet crooks can be found in employers and employees as well as unions. No-one has the absolute mortgage on purity when it comes to industrial relations. So there is no point in confusing this debate with the bunkum spoken by some of these pro-unionists.

  This legislation is full of the values of the past. It ensures the values of payback to the union movement for its role in ensuring the return of the government at the last election. The union movement was faced with the reduction of the old, archaic industrial values it has held for many years and its leaders, rather than accept change, have demanded that their politician boys respond and respect their closed values and not place them at any threat.

  The Labor Party, respecting these old world values, has responded and ensured ongoing discrimination within our industrial relations processes. It has not met the challenge of the new age of technology. To fully understand the values of the union movement and its political arm, the Labor Party, no better example is the attitude of the President of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court from 1907 to 1921, Henry Bournes Higgins, described as a middle-class radical and social reformer appointed to his life’s work by Deakin.

  Higgins placed his stamp upon the arbitration court with his Harvester judgment in 1907 which enshrined fair and reasonable wages. The result of this decision was the establishment of the first award wage. He based the 42 shillings a week calculation on the right of a worker with five children. Also taken into account were such things as lighting, clothing, boots, furniture, utensils, rates, life insurance, savings, accident or benefit societies, loss of employment, union pay, books and newspapers, tram and train fares, sewing machines, mangles, school requisites, amusements and holidays, intoxicating liquors, tobacco, sickness and death, religion or charity.

  This wage fixation system was based on human need, not on profits or productivity. It entrenched the idea of the minimum wage being set by judicial decree. It enshrined the idea of the minimum wage which was sacrosanct and introduced the notion of family welfare into wage setting. It established the notion of the cost of living as a basis for wage movements. Yet, as the world changes, these principles of the union movement and its colleagues opposite do not.

  Higgins was ruthless with his desire to protect his stand. In 1909, with the BHP case, Higgins said that it would be preferable to shut down the mine if BHP could not pay the minimum rate. He said:

If it is a calamity that this historic mine should close down, it would be a greater calamity that men should be underfed or degraded.

Unemployment, by implication, was preferable to cheap labour. These are the values of the labour movement through the union movement and its political wing—`Send the company to the wall, put our brothers on the unemployment line, and long live those still working’. This value has finished for many within industry and commerce and it seems the only ones wishing to hold onto such a concept are the unions and their spokespeople opposite. I wonder what the one in 10 Australians who are currently out of work think about this attitude—`Send the company to the wall, put our brothers on the unemployment line’.

  The legislation before us stands out for one thing and one thing only: it is the total capitulation to the union movement’s old age values and is a payback for electoral support. To support this payback notion, I would like to quote Ms Jennie George, a vice-president of the ACTU. She said:

What the employers have got to understand is that we won the election in March and this bill is payback for the commitments that were made by the government in the course of the election campaign.

This bill is another chapter in the long history of this government paying its political dues to the trade union movement of Australia.

  Because of this bill it will now be more expensive to employ an Australian worker—not for the reasons of those opposite when they suggest that actual wage costs will go down. On this side of the House we support and always have supported the concept of a fair wage for fair work. This coalition view is, I believe, the view of many Australians and is part of our national ethos.

  The real cost of employing people is not wages but rather the silent on-costs associated with wages and salaries. It would be surprising to some to learn that in some cases for every $1 spent on wages by companies a further $2 is spent on essential on-costs. Therefore, salary rates are not the issue that many naive-to-business speakers on the other side have stated. Rather, the on-costs are what employers are seeking flexibility with within this bill. But the bill fails to address these issues.

  On-costs like payroll tax and the rates of insurances required to employ staff are good examples of what I am talking about. This bill does not relieve these costs of employing people and, therefore, does not support the notion of reducing unemployment. The bill is too rigid for enterprises—and by enterprises I mean companies and not the industries with which the unions prefer to deal.

  In the past, industry work conditions have favoured larger companies capable of supporting such conditions. But small business has been sacrificed to the tragic expense of the increasing number of unemployed in Australia, which is now over one in 10. This was the doctrine of Higgins and remains the highly principled values of the union movement and its political wing.

  This bill is against the basic principles of human rights and discriminates against many Australians. For instance, the bill refers to the noble right to strike. But where is the clause that refers to the right to work? The bill requires employers not to discriminate against union members. But where is the clause protecting non-union members? These are two examples of the bill protecting the ageing and outdated values of the union movement.

  The bill is cumbersome and is piecemeal in its presentation, for it has over 35 pages covering some 200 amendments. This bill requires employers operating a non-union enterprise to go through four union protected hoops for approval of its agreement. Firstly, notification has to be made to a union to which no-one belongs; secondly, the company then has to observe the award and conditions of a union to which no-one belongs; thirdly, the enterprise then has to seek the approval of the industrial relations court; and, fourthly, the enterprise then has to seek approval from unions to which no-one belongs.

  This is not enterprise bargaining or a company negotiating with its staff. This is the retention of the dinosaur values—outdated values—driven by the union movement. This bill does not address the demanding issues of the 21st century workplace and continues the dominance of a minority group within the industrial relations system. It is a sad reflection upon the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Brereton), noted for his terrier skills in getting what he wants, and it is a sad day that we as an independent nation are hamstrung by the needs of a small group of self-interested, politically ambitious union representatives, like many on the other side.

  It is time that we accept that the majority of Australians, whether they be employers or employees, are fair-minded and want to contribute to the development of our great country. This is not a time to encourage the withdrawal of investment in Australia by placing huge demands upon employers. It is a time for our community to work together in a sensible way to solve the problems of unemployment. It is not the time for the Higgins doctrine to continue to be driven by this union movement and its colleagues within its political arm.

  It is time that the union movement and the Australian Labor Party realised that the way to solve our problems within this country is to work together. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Les Scott), said the bill was a great achievement for workers, the union movement and the Labor Party. But honourable members opposite do not seem to realise that there are two parts to any industrial relations process: one is the worker providing labour; the other is the employer providing investment. If there is no employer, there is no employee. Unfortunately, those opposite and those terriers within the union movement do not quite understand the concept. They do not understand where the money or investment come from. Mick Jagger said, `I can’t get no satisfaction’. I cannot get any from this bill either.