Mr BARRESI (11:11 AM) —The amendment in the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 2000 dealing with pattern bargaining is being introduced today partly as a response to the increasing levels of industrial action now evident in Victoria since the Bracks government came to office. We have seen more industrial action over the past seven months under the Bracks government than we have for years. The honourable member for Barton's comments that this is purely to satisfy the ego of the minister for industrial relations or the comments of one of the previous speakers—I think it was the member for Griffith—that there is a power play between the Treasurer and the minister for industrial relations are purely and utterly wrong. The fact that both ministers have had the guts to take on major reform in this nation—whether it be at the industrial level or in the finance and taxation areas of this country—is a credit to both of those ministers. It shows that these reforms are long overdue, and the vacuum that was created through the abdication of responsibility for these reforms by the previous government will forever be an indictment of the Australian Labor Party.

Victorians could have been forgiven for thinking that the dark days of tram disputes and union thuggery were over. But, in just a few short months of Labor rule—seven months—industrial action has already returned to being commonplace. The unions have taken control, both in the streets and in the halls of political power—and that is nowhere more evident than in the Victorian parliament and now here through Labor members in the national parliament. We have already had a labour dispute at the Yallourn power station. As a result Victorians went without electricity during a heatwave. We have seen a labour dispute at Docklands. As a result, the proposed Mirvac Docklands project has been placed at risk, with Victoria potentially missing out on millions of investment dollars. The problems at Colonial Stadium almost caused international embarrassment. It seems that if anyone in Victoria has a grievance the union response is to walk out—strike. And even if it is not your problem or concern, you strike in solidarity.

This government believes that employees should have the ability to negotiate a better deal for themselves, they should have the right to negotiate if that is their wish. The ALP knows deep down this the way to go. After all, that is why Keating introduced enterprise bargaining into federal law in 1993. The ALP legislated back then that any industrial action after that time would only be lawful if it was on an enterprise not industry basis. But now their union masters are squeezing them into an about face.

There are a number of manufacturers in my electorate of Deakin who would be bemused by this sudden shift. At a time when they are looking for industrial certainty, the ALP at a federal level and, more particularly, at a state level is seeking to encourage industrial confusion and unrest. The shift away from centralised union power has led to lower dispute levels. We on this side of the parliament are very proud of the fact that there has been a reduction in dispute levels. We are also particularly pleased on this side that it has been a good thing for everyone. It means that there is a higher rate of productivity, that these local companies in my electorate can remain competitive and the benefits of continuing employment can flow through to the employees in my electorate. There are now better wages and conditions, higher productivity, more jobs, increased competitiveness, greater workplace participation and, as I mentioned earlier, lower dispute levels. In fact, since 1996, we have seen a seven per cent increase in real wages and over 700,000 new jobs created by this government.

The ALP do not like this good news. They do not like the benefits that are flowing on from this government's policy. So now, in an attempt to differentiate themselves, they want to attack enterprise bargaining. Enterprise bargaining should be about workplace negotiation involving local circumstances, between employers and employees. It just does not make sense to have the unions try and negotiate a deal that suits everyone across a number of enterprises. Genuine negotiation between management, the work force and their representatives would be far better, because it means that outcomes are based on local circumstances and mutual interests. The unions still have a vital role to play in this process at the local level, and I look forward to their positive participation.

It is also important for us to understand the backdrop to a lot of what is going on in Australia at the moment in terms of competition and industrial progress. We have moved into a globalised marketplace. The global village has now emerged, and the `one size fits all' principle that is central to the union movement is no longer relevant. Employers have different needs and confront different competitive pressures, and workplaces have varying degrees of technological-labour mix. Employees have different needs, as they attempt to combine the changing nature of their work with their ever-conscious need to balance their family responsibilities. It is much easier to accommodate the needs of employees and employers on a case-by-case basis than it is to cover every possible scenario.

It seems that the only people who disagree with this are the unions themselves. So, in an attempt for unions to make themselves relevant and to hold on the last vestiges of central control, they have found a loophole through pattern bargaining. Pattern bargaining occurs when unions demand common outcomes across a whole group of employers or a whole industry, rather than genuine enterprise bargaining. As if trying to stop employers independently negotiating with their employees is not bad enough, the unions are now using the statutory protected action provisions to legitimise any industrial action they take. The practice of pattern bargaining is particularly prevalent in the manufacturing industry. This concerns me because this is an industry where job security and business welfare are closely aligned to international competitiveness. We should not be restricting this in any way.

Union leaders, however, do not see it this way and have acted consistently to keep as much influence as possible—even when this means breaking the law. In November last year, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the Electrical Trades Union called a massive stop-work meeting to discuss Campaign 2000—a campaign—towhich the Bracks government want to conveniently turn a blind eye. Only to after being harangued in the press have they made noises of concern regarding Campaign 2000. It is a union plan to fight for better wages and conditions for factory workers, beginning on 1 July—a fight which will create industrial unrest and uncertainty for manufacturers in my electorate. This campaign may not seem like such a bad thing, but it was not just about securing the best deal for workers. Campaign 2000 will allow unions to take this industrial action in support of broader claims than those sought at an enterprise level.

I have spoken to members in the building industry and the property development field. Accusations are made that one large property developer has already signed up, and we have a second one and therefore the rest will follow. A lot of these companies are saying to me, `This is a political problem. We are not going to fight it. If the unions come to us through pattern bargaining and there is no recourse that we have, we will just fold over. As far as we are concerned, we will just build that into our costs. If the union's demand is for a 10 or 15 per cent increase, we will build that into our costs. If it gets too uncompetitive for us, we will move interstate.' That is their response. They have that luxury, but manufacturing does not have that luxury Their only move is to close their doors or move their operations overseas—which is what many of them are threatening to do. So this bill acts to try to protect those very enterprises, in giving them a voice against the belligerence of the union.

Campaign 2000 will create unrest. We had the courts rule that, at the time when the industrial action took place in November, the stop-work action was unlawful and infringed upon the rights of the employer group. But the union's unlawful action went ahead anyway. It caused massive disruption to the Australian Industry Group, who then decided to bring a contempt of court action against the Electrical Trades Union state secretary, Dean Mighell, and the Australian Manufacturing Union assistant state secretary, Craig Johnston. The case against them was so strong that they were fined $20,000 each. Mr Mighell tried to justify his actions by saying he should be able to gather with workers. It was a nice try, but it is high time that unions realised that they are not a law unto themselves. In handing down his ruling, Justice Ron Merkel said:

I have very limited time. All I can say is that that court action took place in order to protect the employers but the unions thumbed their nose at it. In an era of international competitiveness, we cannot afford to have a centrally controlled enterprise bargaining system. It has not worked in most other nations and it will not work here. The legislation before the House is trying to close this loophole. It will ensure that the true spirit of enterprise bargaining is upheld, and should be passed by all members in this chamber.