Mr ALLAN MORRIS(12.36 p.m.) —I rise in this place to support the amendments moved by the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan). Anybody who has been paying attention to this debate will by now have understood that, rather than this legislation being an advance in industrial relations, it is a retrograde step.

In listening to the speeches and reading through the Hansard of what those opposite have been saying, one gets the feeling of being in some kind of time warp. The rhetoric and attitudes and the material coming across date back 20, 30 and 40 years. I wonder where these people have been for the last 10 or 15 years when we have seen such substantial changes taking place in our work force and our work relations.

More importantly than that, the underpinning of this legislation is, in itself, fraudulent. All through the election campaign we were hearing about unfair dismissals. We now realise that was exaggerated. We all know that the cases referred to were in fact either state cases or, in the main, cases dealt with prior to amendment. So the idea of working up some kind of public animosity towards industrial legislation based on that was fraudulent. The idea that somehow unions were the problem, when in fact they were very much part of the solution and have been for very many years, was fraudulent.

As the amendment bill points out in its very first clause, this legislation breaches the rock solid guarantee given by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who is so pious about his reputation, that no-one would be worse off. Not many speakers have referred to it, but the previous speaker mentioned the transference of people back into state jurisdiction, which will make many of them much worse off. As to the changes to apprenticeships, on the one hand the government talks about shifting money from long-term unemployed support to supporting apprentices and on the other hand is saying that in future years apprentices will only be paid for the four days a week that they are at work. It might not affect existing apprentices, but the fact is that this legislation means that in the years ahead people who become an apprentice boilermaker, metalworker or electrician will only be paid on a pro rata basis while they are at work. In fact, their wages will be less than they are now.

On the one hand they are saying that they want to encourage more apprenticeships, but on the other hand they are signalling in this legislation that there will be a cut in wages for those people. Workplace based training is a fuzzy area and it means that effectively people will be working for $3.05 per hour. So much for rock solid guarantees, so much for the basis of it and so much for the mandate. The government has no mandate for what is being put forward in this legislation. In fact, to the contrary, the government's mandate was to protect people, not to attack them. The government's mandate was to improve the economy, not push it backwards.

I refer back to the early 1980s, when the current Prime Minister was then the Treasurer. There was a massive wage increase of 14½ per cent in 1981. I want to refer to what it did to the economy, to workplaces and to people individually. In Newcastle the steel works was virtually closed. In 1983 the steel works was closing, make no mistake. In 1983 one of the first things that the previous government did was to establish a steel plan. One of its key components was to require the company and the work force to work together. In fact, that was quite an exciting experience because it had not happened much before. A number of people in BHP management said to us, `That has been really effective. We are glad that happened.' It was the first time they had actually sat down and worked it out. They told their employees about their business and what was happening inside the business. They told them the real figures and showed them the cost inputs, the market prices and all the other forces at work which drive a business. The employees had never known this before. The employers told them all of that and received enormous cooperation. Now BHP has invested heavily in the plant and it is committed to investing even more heavily in it in the future.

In addition, there has been a reduction in the work force, which has been quite difficult for my community. However, it has resulted in enormous productivity and a massive improvement in steel quality. Let us face it, BHP Newcastle produced poor quality steel from its inception until the late 1980s because it did not need to produce good steel. Part of this whole process has involved looking at quality, performance and productivity across the business with the work force being involved in it as well.

What is proposed in the legislation would mean that BHP would deal with every employee separately. Under the CRA model—as is allowed by this process—every employee will have a private contract and would be told, `You can't tell anybody else how much you are getting and, if you do, you could be dismissed for it.' If we had done that in 1983, that company would have gone by now. There is no way it would have survived in New castle in that kind of environment of worker against worker, section against section and mischief against mischief. That is what this is about.

This is more than going back to the old days of industrial warfare. That was a `them and us' attitude when there were bosses and workers. That was the old model, which has long gone. This legislation puts everybody against everybody. This is not team building; this is team destroying. For example, Incitec is a company involved in a very difficult industry and is reliant upon natural gas. In Newcastle natural gas is three to four times the price of the same raw material in Indonesia. Ninety per cent of that company's costs come from its raw materials. I will not go into the profits made by AGL and the problems of gas pipelines. That is not about employees or workers; this is more about the wisdom of some of our decision makers in business. Incitec's gas supplies cost them three to four times the price. They went to their employees and said, `We really need to minimise our wages costs as best we can.'

In 1991 Incitec, in conjunction with the government, took people across to Canada and America to look at a range of companies. They wanted the unions to be involved because they thought it was important to have that corporate knowledge available. Those funds were provided to assist union representatives to go on that delegation—to enormous criticism from those opposite. It became a matter of criticism in the parliament that that was actually being done. These are the people who talk about cooperation. As a result of that visit, that company has dramatically changed its internal structures and relationships. The shifts, hours and days that they work were designed by the work force in conjunction with management and the unions.

In 1992 I took enormous pleasure in attending a seminar sponsored by the Commonwealth. Two union representatives attended the seminar and were the first speakers. They outlined the benefits of restructuring and how to do it, as per the Incitec model. They talked about annualised salaries, 10-hour shifts and a whole range of ways to do things differently. Those people, Mark Soper and Mary McGill, have done an enormous amount. They have gone into workplaces and talked to managers and owners of plants in Newcastle and throughout the whole Hunter Valley. They have advocated new ideas and new methods. The Commonwealth's investment in those people travelling to Canada has paid enormous dividends for companies right throughout the valley.

In recent months, Incitec have shown record performances of output of both productivity and quality. Their up-time in terms of their plant has improved enormously and their whole relationship with their work force has grown wonderfully. This started five years ago in that particular company. It started in BHP Newcastle back in 1983-84. Where have these people been for all these years? Don't they know what is doing on in the real world? All this rhetoric we are hearing about really dates back a very long time, to a past age.

The fact is that Australia needs to be competitive and flexible, but Australia needs to work as a team. It needs to have people working and sharing responsibility, and taking responsibility. The idea that somehow those employers at Incitec could have individually negotiated a massive change in working hours and work conditions across different trades, occupations and backgrounds is absolutely laughable. They would have closed years ago with this legislation, this kind of model and the projections put forward, as would BHP.

I am fortunate to have a copy of a submission that Dr Roy Green made to the Senate inquiry. Dr Green is well known and incredibly well respected in the industrial relations system and in the system called better practice. Just last week we heard about the National Audit Commission's report. We constantly see the new government picking up from the previous government on the term `best practice'. It is now an important signal. What has been put forward in Newcastle, which has been working so well, is the acceptance of the concept of best practice.

Best practice is not simply about separating unions out and working with individual employees. It is about how the whole company functions as a team. The models that are available are now established and well en trenched. We have companies in Newcastle such as Goninan's and Anderson Rae increasing their work forces and winning contracts against competition both nationally and internationally. They do not need this legislation to achieve that; they just need a bit of commonsense, a cooperative workplace environment and a cooperative union environment where the union becomes the reservoir of support and understanding and depth of knowledge, not the image being put forward. Dr Green's submission states:

However, a body of research demonstrates that awards are not the main or even a significant factor impeding flexibility and productivity in Australian workplaces.

This is a person with incredible experience and depth of knowledge saying that the idea somehow that awards are stopping flexibility is just not true. It is not true because in Newcastle we know it is not true. We have proven it is not true. The old industrial centre of Newcastle has modernised and changed like nowhere in the world, and faster than anywhere in the world. If one compares Newcastle with Birmingham, Dusseldorf or Pittsburgh and looks at what has occurred and how long it took to make the changes, they will find that Newcastle changed faster than anywhere in the world. What has been put forward today in this legislation undermines all of that. This is terrifying stuff to a place like Newcastle.

The Australian quoted Peter Barrack, the Secretary of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council. He has been one of the drivers of these changes, as have so many others. He says:

I think the legislation is ideologically driven. And I think there is a lack of understanding of the sort of co-operation through the best practices process that is happening on the job.

We are using best practice procedures in Newcastle. Someone should tell these people opposite. They should get out there now. I think the last speaker mentioned John Howard's legislation in 1977. That is about where they are. They are still fighting the battle of 1981. Remember when Malcolm went to the wedding. To get to the wedding he had to agree to a wage increase. They are still fighting that battle 15 years later.

This legislation is all rooted in that kind of class warfare. There obviously is a class warfare in Australia, but it is not from us; it is from those opposite. Just go and read their speeches and look at what they are saying. The hatred and the venom that comes across to the union movement is unbelievable. Obviously, they do not know anything about it. Obviously, they do not realise that in a sensible industrial city or country the unions are part of the solution. They are not the problem; they are part of the solution. The best practice model has been demonstrated and proven to be a vehicle to harness the experience and the depth, to build teams and to build a team across a company.

What has gone on with this whole legislation is a farce. A whole lot of political rhetoric has come forward in the guise of economic reform. The fact is that this legislation is aimed at driving down wages. That is what it is about. It is aimed at going back to the old system of driving down wages to somehow improve economic performance. If this legislation were adopted as it is now, there is no doubt that average wages in Australia would reduce. Casualisation would increase and youth exploitation would worsen.

I am increasingly getting reports—in fact, I commented publicly about it not long ago—about the number of young people being exploited. They are working for nothing to get work experience and working at weekends and not being paid overtime. They are too scared to tell anybody because they need the job. These people are being taught at 14 and 15 not to trust employers because they will get used up and not to tell anybody because if they do they will be blacked around the town. What is happening out there now is partly being encouraged by this legislative process. As for the idea of a 15-year-old going to an employment advocate, it is hard to get them to approach a politician or even tell their parents or their friends, let alone some government official. This legislation is setting a climate for division, for disloyalty and eventually for driving down wages.

I came to the chamber to support the amendment. I encourage the community of Australia to engage in this debate via the Senate inquiry. This legislation cannot be allowed to pass in the form that it is. If it does, it will be a massive backwards step—not to the 1980s but to the 1960s and 1970s. I recommend the amendment to the House.