Mr MURPHY (10:54 AM) —I rise this morning to oppose the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Workplace Agreements Procedures) Bill 2000, which is yet another attempt by the Howard government to strip away the rights of workers and deny the role of trade unions in the bargaining process. The amendments in this bill are essentially the same as schedule 9 in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999, which the opposition and the Democrats had the good sense to oppose last year. According to the Bills Digest, this bill contains amendments that seek to:

There is presently a condition where existing employees must be given a copy of the agreement at least 14 days prior to signing the agreement and new employees must be given a copy at least five days in advance of signing the agreement. The proposed amendments eliminate the requirement that comparable employees be offered identical AWAs. This is one of the most unfair and indecent parts of this bill. This will enable employers to discriminate against employees. Ultimately, it will create inherently unequal pay for equal jobs in the workplace. The Bills Digest goes on to point out that the proposed amendments would:

In the bill there are also amendments to the provisions which obstruct awards that had been made under section 170MX(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 dealing with the relationship between AWAs and certified agreements and awards. Basically, as the shadow minister for industrial relations said in this House yesterday, these are awards the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has arbitrated, and where the AIRC as a result of a dispute has determined there is no chance of an agreement it sets an award. The bill also allows the removal of limited immunity available in respect of industrial action taken in support of a claim for an AWA. This effectively prohibits an employee from accessing protected industrial action during the term of the AWA, and is therefore inequitable.

Finally, the proposed amendments are supposed to simplify the approvals process by: one, blending the existing assessment of filing requirements and approval requirements into an amalgamated one-step approval process by the Employment Advocate; two, removing the requirement that the EA refer AWAs to the AIRC where there is a concern that the AWA does not pass the no disadvantage test—the no disadvantage test is where the AWA is compared to the relevant existing award; the Employment Advocate would apply the no disadvantage test in all cases; and, three, providing a more streamlined process for AWAs that provide rates of remuneration greater than $68,000 per year.

I would like to record that the government's so-called simplification of workplace relations legislation will further abuse and erode the rights of ordinary Australian workers, those who have only their labour to sell, and increase the power of the wealthy employers who are driven by greed, avarice and the need to make profits at all costs. The original reforms worked to reduce the power of an employee or a trade union to take industrial action or seek review where review could be necessary. This simplification of the AWA process will see a further reduction in the already limited review process, because the current role of the AIRC to look at the no disadvantage test in AWAs will be taken on by the Employment Advocate. Once again, the public interest has been slaughtered.

This bill allows the government, for no reason except ideology, to diminish the already reduced role of the AIRC, the proven umpire between employers and employees. That is a disgrace. Let us look at the statistics pertaining to AWAs. A report titled `Agreement making in Australia under the Workplace Relations Act 1998 and 1999' states the refusal rate of AWAs was in 1998 only two per cent and in 1999 less than one per cent. Few AWAs, as you know, are ever challenged.

I note that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has just come into the chamber to wind up the debate on this bill. He thinks providing cooling-off periods is an adequate way of fully protecting employee interests. The minister is dead wrong. Employee interests will never be protected while the minister continues to pursue legislation which strips away awards, bashes unions and at all times prefers employer interests over employee interests. As my colleague the shadow minister for industrial relations, Arch Bevis, said yesterday in the House, the AWA process gives the employer an enormous amount of power, a free kick even, particularly when you remove unions, collective agreements and the independent umpire and when the employee is left to negotiate wages and conditions with their boss. I also note with serious concern that the current legislation permits AWAs to incorporate civility and faithfulness, and special employee obligations into contracts. Equally disturbing is that AWAs incorporate oppressive or remedial provisions which allow employers to take disciplinary action against employees.

I would like to ask the minister, as he is sitting at the table, what safeguards are provided to ensure that employees are not subjected to these unfair provisions in their AWAs or placed under duress to sign such unfair AWAs?

Mr Reith —You should read the act.

Mr MURPHY —I have read the act, Minister.

Mr Reith —It is obvious that you haven't.

Mr MURPHY —I have. What guarantees can I give my constituents in Lowe that awards and rights currently in existence will not be further eroded? Obviously none.

Mr Reith —The only guarantee you will get is that you will send around a union secretary.

Mr MURPHY —The minister can interject as much as he likes, but the minister is only interested in looking after those who have the capital and the means of production and exchange. He is not interested in those who have only their labour to sell, who are the people that we are here to represent in this parliament.

Mr Reith —That is the language of the ideologue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister will not intervene, and the member for Lowe will ignore—

Mr MURPHY —I will address my comments through the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker—I take your point—but, if the minister wants to have a crack at me, I emphasise that we are elected to this House to look after the ordinary people. We are not here to look after the rich and powerful and those who, as I said, have the capital and means of production and exchange; we are here to look after those who have only their labour to sell. You know that, Minister, very well.

Mr MURPHY —I am not; I am here to represent those ordinary people, and you are just creating insecurity.

Mr Reith —You are here just to represent union leaders.

Mr MURPHY —No. Minister, you have a record of just bashing the unions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have to say that the minister is not helping the House and I again ask the member for Lowe to address his remarks through the chair and to ignore any other intervention.

Mr MURPHY —I am doing my best, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the minister is being provocative. I will respond to interjections because, if they are going to be recorded in Hansard, I want my contribution to be recorded in Hansard also.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Respond by all means, but do it through the chair.

Mr MURPHY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, with legislation like this there is no security for my constituents and their families, from Drummoyne to Homebush West and from Rhodes to Strathfield South and Enfield, to ensure that they will not be placed at a disadvantage in the bargaining process of AWAs. Minister Reith knows the truth of the matter, which is that these AWAs are in practice barely an `agreement' in the literal sense of the word. More often than not these agreements are of the type where, if the employee does not agree, if they will not sign the agreement, they have no job. Minister, is that fair? Plainly, it is signing under coercion. Coercion and duress are practices we should never encourage or endorse in a democratic society.

I believe the minister is opportunistically using this bill to remove the collective bargaining system from existence, a system which is fair and decent for all Australian workers—all in the name of flexibility. The minister believes he has the hit the ball firmly into the employers' court. However, according to a report in the Australian on 7 June 2000:

Why would anyone in their right mind promote this process to employers as fair, flexible and straightforward when that clearly is not the case? It is also deceptive for the minister to continue claiming that the Workplace Relations Act gives employees an increased chance of better pay and conditions. Quite plainly this is ludicrous. I am very pleased to see that the shadow minister for industrial relations has come into the chamber too. Let us hope that in another 15 months he is sitting where the minister is sitting now.

The member for Cunningham, when he was speaking a little earlier this morning, asked why the government is not sitting down in the spirit of cooperation with regard to its own position, the unions' position and the ordinary workers. Quite plainly the government does not want to do this because, as the member for Cunningham so succinctly put it, it is only promoting the power shift from the ordinary workers to the employers. A moment ago the member for the Northern Territory exposed what the government is all about in terms of the Employment Advocate—it is becoming the employer advocate. Quite obviously that is unacceptable. Years ago the Prime Minister promised that under the new regime of workplace relations no workers would be better off.

Mr Reith —Worse off.

Mr MURPHY —Sorry, would be worse off. Thank you, Minister. Quite plainly that is not the case, because those who come through the doors of my office in Burwood are certainly not better off. They are worried about job security for themselves and their families. When they are slugged with another broken promise, particularly in relation to fairness in workplace relations, they are very concerned about that. And they have been slugged with a GST.

Mr Reith —Are you against the GST?

Mr MURPHY —We are, because it is a regressive tax. You know that, Minister.

Mr Reith —Are you going to roll it back?

Mr MURPHY —Yes, we are going to make it fairer. That is what roll-back is all about.

Mr Reith —How are you going to make it fairer?

Mr MURPHY —You were not listening in question time over the last couple of days when reference was made to the enormous amount of revenue that your government is deriving from the increases in world oil prices.

Mr Reith —That's got nothing to do with the GST.

Mr MURPHY —It has got a lot to do with it because it is a form of revenue for the government. You are absolutely awash with money, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I can assure the member for Lowe that the chair is not awash with money. Again, he should direct his remarks only to the chair.

Mr MURPHY —I accept that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am being provoked by the minister sitting at the table.

Mr Reith —Talk about roll-back.

Mr MURPHY —I will talk about roll-back. The Treasurer was in here during question time yesterday and the day before talking about roll-back and saying that he has not heard the opposition use the term `roll-back'. We are using the term `roll-back' quite a lot, Minister. Roll-back is all about making the taxation system fairer. It would be a lot fairer if you handed back the revenue that you are deriving from the increases in world oil prices to ordinary people, because fuel prices affect everyone. It is scandalous. Roll-back is all about making taxation fairer. How can a 10 per cent flat rate of tax be fair? Quite obviously it is not. This government is a government of broken promises, not only in respect of GST but in many other areas. The government comes in here and talks about looking after ordinary people, but it is interested only in looking after those who are well off, not the ones who are suffering. This government is offering no security.

To get back to this legislation, look at what Jeff Kennett did to AWAs in Victoria. The people voiced their opinions at the last Victorian election by getting rid of the then Premier of Victoria. This legislation is all about removing the safety net. A lot of people in my electorate of Lowe come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Approximately 40 per cent of the people who live in my electorate were not born in Australia. They are disadvantaged by this legislation and the watering down of the awards. Obviously the awards which have been fought for by our forebears for over 100 years to give reasonable security to ordinary families will evaporate under your regime. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business comes in here with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and they tell us how the world economy is going and talk about the national interest. I cannot see that anything in the national interest is trickling down to the people who come through the doors of my electorate office in Burwood in my electorate of Lowe. As far as the government is concerned, the national interest seems to be all about promoting a climate for big business to make record profits and the closing of banks. The government's understanding of the national interest is that it is all about looking after and promoting big business. They do not understand that it is about public interest—looking after the ordinary person. The government is quite heartless in pursuing this workplace relations regime just to erode the security of families.

Mr MURPHY —I have not lost it, Minister. Your Prime Minister made it quite plain that he was going to look after the battlers. Every day we read in the papers about `John Howard's battlers'. About the only thing the Prime Minister has done is create more battlers. You know that. Your legislation before the House today is making a contribution to that situation because it will create more battlers. You are not looking after ordinary people, and that is why I am speaking about the legislation. All the people who fought for very many years for the conditions and pay appropriate to the labour of ordinary workers would be turning in their graves today if they were contemplating this legislation going through the parliament. The situation will change in another 12 or 15 months when we have a federal election. When I go around my electorate of Lowe and talk about workplace relations, I can see that people are looking for leadership from a Prime Minister who has a heart, who is decent and who has compassion. Quite plainly, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, fulfils those criteria magnificently.

Mr MURPHY —You and the other minister at the table, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, are laughing now, but I am very confident that when the federal election is called—most likely in the next 12 to 15 months—the people of Australia will vote for Kim Beazley; they will not vote for John Howard. Maybe the minister is cynical enough to think that that is an opportunity for him to sit in that chair. People want a Prime Minister who will govern for everybody, not just for the rich and powerful.

Mr MURPHY —That is true: he is looking after the interests of Mr Packer with free-to-air television. What other industry in Australia has legislation to protect it? What other proprietor with the wealth of Mr Packer is so protected? No-one else is allowed to get into the market for fear that if we have greater media diversity we will get broader opinions and views other than those in the interests of the government. Finally, it would be un-Australian to support this legislation, which breeds discrimination. In government Labor will abolish AWAs and work to implement a system which is fair and just. I oppose the bill, Minister—in fact, I condemn it.