Mrs CROSIO (6:07 PM) —In speaking tonight on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transmission of Business) Bill 2002, I would like to remind government members that this bill is, once again, an attempt to downgrade the rights of working Australians. Since 1999, when the former Minister for Workplace Relations, Peter Reith, presented the disastrous Workplace Relations (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999—what a laughable title for legislation that was—the government has been hopelessly unsuccessful in getting its legislation through this parliament. The reason the government's legislation cannot become law is that it is bad and pernicious. I am just amazed by the battle of attrition that the government keeps putting itself into in this fight—which it started—to reduce the working conditions of Australians. The parliament has, bill after bill, rejected various attempts to introduce these laws, and during this sitting the government has introduced numerous pieces of workplace relations legislation. This bill can be added to the list of bad legislation. I totally support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Barton.

Working Australians will see a further reduction in their right to workplace democracy, where the right to vote on a certified agreement after a transmission of business will be denied. Pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, employees are able to vote on a proposed certified agreement, whether they are a member of a registered organisation or whether they are negotiating directly with the employer. Also, which I believe is essentially cruel, this legislation will junk a certified agreement when there is a corporate restructuring and contracting out. That means that people who might have been employed for many years at a workplace and then see that business sold, with no real change to their job, will see the instrument of their employment removed. Effectively, their employment status will start again or, more likely, they will be thrown on the unemployment scrapheap. Electorates like mine see this time and time again. A lot of workers in my electorate do not understand English as well as they should, but they are very diligent workers. They go merrily along thinking that the boss may change but their working conditions will stay the same. Then, only a month or two later, they find that they no longer have a job. This is what the government believes is good law. Instead, we on this side of the House propose that, when a business is transmitted, employees who perform substantially the same work will not suffer a reduction in terms and conditions.

The government has reintroduced this legislation after its failed attempts in 1999 and 2001 because, it claims, the buyers of a business are concerned about having to meet the requirements of employment instruments when purchasing a business. I do not see how this is a problem. If a prospective buyer wants to keep a business running substantially the same as it was before the purchase—or even improve on it—why should they have the right to downgrade the working conditions of the employees? Any self-respecting businessperson, you would think, would have done their homework on the all the costs and overheads of the business—especially the cost of labour. If the cost of labour was greater than their budgeted price, why buy the business in the first place? We are proud of the growth of this nation, we are proud of the work done by the employees; so why do we want to turn this nation back into a Third World country?

The fact is that the government is not interested in assisting decent, reputable employers and employees. It seems determined to impose on all parties a highly litigious and confrontational system that is partial to one side. This cannot be denied. The government seems determined, by this bill, to support only the unscrupulous employers, not all employers. The reason that the government will fail once again to have this legislation passed into law is that it cannot provide enough evidence to prove that prospective employers are adversely affected by the current system. Honest, hardworking employers have no problems with the system presently in place.

The government's propaganda constantly professes to provide greater flexibility and democracy in the workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, you would know from your past employment, and I know too, that relevant provisions are contained in the Workplace Relations Act for a true democratic process to be followed to terminate or vary a certified agreement pursuant to sections 170MG, MH and MHA. What is the problem? Is it workplace democracy? Is it a practical difficulty to engage in workplace democracy? This government has no belief whatsoever in promoting workplace democracy. All power goes to the employer, and the crumbs—literally—go to employees. That is why the government is so desperate to increase the number of Australian Workplace Agreements—AWAs, as they are called—the quintessential master-servant instrument.

My grandfather often related how, in 1890, before our Labor Party began, the wharf labour strike occurred in Sydney because of the way the workers were treated. He was part of it. I remember, as a young child, Johan Renneberg saying to me, `Never go back to those bad old days.' We seem to be intent on doing that, because, through its pieces of legislation, this government seems to be absolutely determined to make sure the employees stay under the employer's thumb. It is quite contemptuous of this government, and particularly this minister, to come into this place and pretend that this proposed bill will, in any way, be beneficial to ordinary working men and women.

It is a wonder that the minister did not present this bill as the Patrick bill. This bill is, in effect, a legitimisation of the dogs-and-balaclava tactics that former Minister Reith and his cronies at Patrick implemented in that horrible saga back in 1998. Ordinary men and women were thrown on the employment scrapheap because the managers of the company, with the quite explicit approval of the government, decided that it would be more profitable for institutional shareholders and themselves to create a shelf company. If this legislation is passed it is a stone-cold certainty that there will be an explosion of shelf companies. The government showed in 1998 that it approved corporate skulduggery, and this bill will enshrine this in law.

There are plenty of shelf companies in the corporate world already. Many were established to minimise tax, and others were established to remove the employer's obligations to their employees. Many in the corporate world do not believe that they have the same moral responsibilities as the rest of us in the community. The greedy lust for more and more profits, with greater share prices and corresponding share issues and bonuses to managers and directors, sees a number of people push the bounds of legality. It could be argued that the government has given tacit approval to some of these less than legitimate practices by its very laissez-faire approach to tightening the legislative provisions relating to corporate governance. Many of us who can remember know very well the Prime Minister's lack of will, whilst Treasurer in the Fraser government, to tackle bottom of the harbour tax schemes. Back then, the Fraser government tried, as conservative governments always do, to destroy a union and consequently had the Costigan royal commission explode in its face.

Unlike the Howard government, a number of governments overseas are protecting ordinary working men and women. In Europe, under what has been described as the German model, the requirement upon a transfer of business is that employees `automatically continue to be employed on the same terms and conditions as before the transfer'. Hence, the new employer must observe the terms and conditions of any relevant collective agreement that was in existence prior to that transfer. The rights of the employee are sacrosanct in Europe. There is continuity of employment and any accrued benefits that are based on length of service are carried forward. It is explicit that renegotiation of an existing collective agreement is not permitted. European case law has also reinforced this principle by determining in the Spijkers v. Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir case the type of business, the passing of tangible or intangible assets, whether the majority of staff were taken on by the new employer, the transfer of customers, the degree of similarity in activities pre and post transfer, and the period of any suspension of activities. These have been determined. Canada has similar provisions, whereby a new employer is bound by any collective agreement that is applicable to the employees employed in the business.

These factors and principles correlate with Labor's position on this issue. A test should be included in the act for the AIRC to determine whether, after the transmission of business, employees perform substantially the same type of work. I believe that an employee should expect, even though the company they work for has been sold, that if they are performing the same work they should keep their wages and conditions. If a business is being sold for economic reasons and a new owner wishes to purchase that business pursuant to new labour requirements, then the employees should have the right to obtain and consider that information when the likely proposal to vary or terminate the certified agreement is made.

The High Court has found that no test exists to ascertain whether a transmission of business has occurred. In its decision in the PP Consultants Pty Ltd v. Finance Sector Union case of 16 November 2000 the court held:

Labor's amendment is all the more important considering the problems in defining a test for transmission of business. This legislation will also see workers entitlements, which are of course very close to my heart, fly out the window if it is passed. A private member's bill presented in my name, the Employee Protection (Employee Entitlements Guarantee) Bill 2003, will guarantee 100 per cent of workers entitlements, but the government refuses to debate the bill. It is a disgrace that this government steadfastly refuses to guarantee the entitlements of ordinary workers, especially considering the consequences that will arise if this legislation passes the parliament.

The government will of course tell us about the good it has done with its employee entitlements scheme. I can tell the government that it is hopelessly inadequate. The government has, like the scrooge it is, placed a cap of $20,000 on payments of entitlements. Most employees would be lucky to get half of that, and the red tape that the workers are made to go through makes the whole process a nightmare. I said when I first presented that 39-page stand-alone bill in 1998 and every year since that I do not want ownership of it. It is fine if the government wants to debate it and amend it, as long as the resulting bill has the same principle—100 per cent protection of employee entitlements, regardless of what happens to the employers in the future.

As we have seen time and time again under this government, the only entitlement is for the employer to make at times obscene profits, whilst workers scrounge around looking for any savings that they may have or can make. It is about time that the government lived up to its own rhetoric and embraced a more cooperative approach to industrial relations. All this erosion of workers rights breeds conflict. The government would do well to learn from the approach to industrial relations employed by the Hawke and Keating governments, where cooperation was the operative word in relations between employers and employees. Whilst the government espouses its so-called workplace revolution, it should be placed on the record that it was Labor that introduced workplace bargaining. A cornerstone of the egalitarian history of this country has been the system of conciliation and arbitration established by Labor nearly a century ago. This system created the means for our country to prosper and for there to be an independent umpire to adjudicate in industrial disputes.

It was also Labor that saw that the world was changing during the 1980s and allowed for the peaceful restructuring of globalisation. This government should not forget that it is now living off the fruits of Labor's work—the work that the Prime Minister failed to undertake during his tenure as Treasurer. The transmission of business provisions in this bill and the refusal of the government to provide employees with a voice show just how determined it is to forever alter society and what we believe in this country is the betterment of mankind.

The government constantly comes into this House castigating the union movement, but studies have shown that disputation is much more likely to be caused by employers than employees and their union representatives. This would seem to indicate a trend of incompetent management. It might be more constructive if the government spent more of its time on teaching employers how to be cooperative rather than continually union bashing.

I think it is appropriate to ask members on the other side, while they attempt to score cheap political points on the lack of business experience on our side of this place, how many of them can claim the 27 years worth of experience that I have had with my husband in running a successful small business? There are not too many over on that side of the House who can put their hand up.

The party of lawyers and barristers claims to know all there is about business, but there is more to know than lining your pockets with profits and shares. A long-running, successful business usually eventuates when you develop good, strong relationships with your employees. A business is a partnership as much as anything else and the loyalty of employees should always be rewarded.

This legislation rewards greed over loyalty. The long-serving loyal employee can be easily cast aside by this quite pernicious piece of legislation. I make this appeal to the government in the time I have left to me in this debate: when are we going to have some fairness in workplace relations bills that come before the House? We on this side of the House should not continually get up and castigate the government for what they are trying to achieve in the bills they bring forward. This would not happen if the bills that were presented to this House at least had a balance in what they were trying to achieve.

No-one on this side of the House says that bad employees should continue to be employed. What we are saying is that an employer should not have the right to run roughshod over a person they are employing. When an employer buys or sells a business, employees should not have no rights left whatsoever. It is also about time we in this parliament honour and respect the working men and women of this country—they can only offer their labour and do expect some reward. It is about time that, in 2003, we come of age and start to defend the rights of the working man and woman in Australia.

I repeat: I never want to hear the stories my grandfather told me of the strike that occurred in 1890. All the working men were trying to do was to get a decent wage for the work they were undertaking. I believe those events were the beginning of the Labor Party. I did not know that my grandfather took such an active part until we started to research part of his life in this country. He was Norwegian and he came out here many years ago, as you would imagine.

We do not want to go backwards. We cannot advance a nation by retrospectivity, as this government seems intent on doing: cast aside the employee and just protect the employer. I believe employer protection is warranted at times but, more importantly, protection is warranted more by those who are least able to protect themselves. That is what good legislation is about. It is about time this government learnt to put that in place and brought that type of legislation into the House so that we can for once stand up and be united in debating legislation that protects the future of Australia and the men and women whom we purport to represent in this place. I condemn the bill and I support the amendment.