Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY (8:45 PM) —The Workplace Relations Amendment (Genuine Bargaining) Bill 2002 is the government's third attempt to address its concerns about threats caused to jobs by pattern bargaining campaigns. Firstly, I would like to give the House a brief overview of this particular issue. The reality is that, as the previous speaker alluded, workplace bargaining helps the economy because wages and conditions are determined by genuine workplace negotiations between employers and employees, with outcomes based on mutual interests and local circumstances.

However, there is no doubt that elements within the union movement have attempted to orchestrate a return to industry level bargaining through the process known as pattern bargaining. This means that unions use pattern bargaining to conduct their negotiations across a range of employers or an industry and do not in fact genuinely negotiate at enterprise level. Pattern bargaining is the worst type of negotiation because it involves no negotiation and ignores the needs of employees and employers at the workplace level. This bill would not prevent unions from making the same claims over a number of employers, but it will reinforce the Industrial Relations Commission's ability to end protected strike action by suspending or terminating bargaining periods if unions are not in fact genuinely bargaining about their claims.

I would like to speak very briefly about some of the politics associated with this particular issue. There is no doubt that the House would agree that strikes cost jobs. Industry-wide strikes cost a lot of jobs and hurt the community. In fact, the Labor Party cannot deny that when they were last in government they also sought to limit the right to strike; they were intended as a means of last resort. However, the unions are attempting to extend the right to strike. I notice that the previous speaker, the member for Corio, mentioned Mr Cameron. Doug Cameron and Craig Johnston of the AMWU have made it clear that their intent is to use pattern bargaining to end enterprise bargaining within the manufacturing industry. That was reported in the FinancialReview of 17 June 2000.

So what else has been happening in the unfortunate attempts by the union movement to ignore real job creation? Craig Johnston is the chief policy adviser to the Labor Party in the Victorian branch of the AMWU. The SydneyMorningHerald on 23 June 2001 reported that in the past year members of this branch of the union have held out against paying a $20,000 contempt of court fine for holding illegal stop work meetings. The fine was eventually paid by—guess who?—an anonymous businessman. That union has been the subject of allegations over two run-throughs causing several hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to two Melbourne businesses. This was reported in the Age on 16 June 2001. According to the Australian on 30 November 2001, this union was rebuked by the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, who last year wrote to Mr Cameron's followers to complain about:

There is a reason for all of this: in the last six years the AMWU has donated $3 million to the ALP. And their threats go further. The Australian of 22 November 2001 reported:

Five days later, after the Leader of the Opposition's closed-door confessional, Mr Cameron proudly declared, according to the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 November 2001:

The reality is that this is very much opposed by the union movement—and for good reason. Let us have a look at some of the recent articles in major newspapers. I refer to an article by Robert Gottliebsen in the Australian of Tuesday 23 April this year. In it, he makes reference to how:

But in Western Australia the federal reforms contributed to an even greater fall, from 37 per cent to 19.5 per cent, and, if you exclude the public sector, it is down to 14 per cent union membership. Mr Gottliebsen does not believe that that contributed to the union movement developing skills to negotiate more flexible work practices; if anything, the union leaders were `harder and harder to deal with'. He now makes the observation, which we are all aware of:

He goes on to say:

He gives some examples:

He also goes on to quote another example:

His final words include this:

He goes on to say that the WA legislation will make it easier for pattern bargaining, the very thing that this bill will try to address.

I would now like to move on to another issue, which is the Federal Court's Electrolux ruling—last Friday's decision. I want to refer particularly to an article in the Australian on Monday, 24 June by Peter Hendy, who is the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Most of us would be familiar with the decision of the Federal Court, which is essentially to grant unions the right to demand non-union fees from those who are not in unions. In other words, somebody in a workplace who is not a member of the union can be asked to pay up to $500 as, frankly, a form of bribe. It certainly does not involve freedom of association or freedom of will. The Federal Court has in fact supported this, and Mr Hendy's comments are as follows:

He goes on to say:

no doubt to allow people to do run-throughs like the one Mr Johnston did which caused several hundred thousand dollars worth of damage—

He makes this point, though, very interestingly in the article:

A good point. Those who chose to keep jobs and opportunities open get to pay the fine to the union, which is exactly what it is about. He goes on in his article to say:

As we have seen from the member for Corio, they are simply going to knock it back, knock it back and knock it back. This is the third time this bill in one form or another has come before the House. It is fine to keep knocking it back because—can I say to the leaders of the opposition—the Australian people will keep knocking you back. It will be many years before you have any hope of getting on this side of the House.

The reality is that the Australian people have seen through your false commitments about border protection now that you are so divided and are refusing to support `excisement' of areas of Australia from the Migration Act. They are going to see through this, too. While those in the opposition may imagine that they have had some sort of win and that they will prevent the government from having its way, the reality is that it is the Australian people who will have their way. They will not elect those on the opposition benches to government because they will not support union thuggery; they will not support the likes of Craig Johnston running through a business. It is a cute little phrase, isn't it, for somebody who is essentially just a vandal and who caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage? They will not support unions donating $3 million to the ALP to ride roughshod over small businesses and those who choose not to be in a union. I trust in time that there will be those in the Senate who will see the sense of what the government is proposing. For those in the opposition ranks, they will be consigned to opposition for a very long time.