Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR (9:05 PM) —I rise to oppose the Workplace Relations Amendment (Right of Entry) Bill 2004, presented to the House this evening. Many speakers on this side of the House have already highlighted the difficulties with this bill. It seems to me that the government, in its haste to diminish entitlements of employees and the capacities of registered organisations of employees, have not really thought about the practicalities of the provisions of this bill. As the member for Brisbane and others have indicated, there are many questions that any reader of the bill would have when looking through some of the provisions.

It should also be noted that there have already been significant amendments to the capacity for unions to enter the workplace. The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 made many changes to the right of entry provisions and limited the capacity for unions—or ‘employee advocates’; whatever term you like—to enter the workplace on behalf of employees to review whether there had been breaches of industrial awards or other forms of industrial instruments.

As I have indicated, there were many changes way back when the Howard government was first elected. Indeed those provisions included the requirement for at least 24-hours notice of an intention to enter to be given to employers; the provision that discussions with employees may be held only during breaks, which replaced the award based right of entry to hold discussions with employees who wished to participate in the discussions; and indeed the capacity for the commission pursuant to section 127AA to provide that any award or order giving union officers or employees the right to enter premises, inspect records and other things, and interview employees may be made unenforceable.

Clearly, nine years ago or thereabouts there was a reduction in the entitlements of employees to have their conditions of employment considered in light of what they were to be paid under law. Therefore, it seems somewhat unnecessary for the government to proceed with this bill, because the entitlements are now rather modest and rather restrictive. Nonetheless, the government has decided to pursue further the capacity to strip away the rights of working people to have their employment conditions properly considered by their representatives. Effectively removing this protection will, in my mind, certainly leave vulnerable many employees in this nation.

While it is not the object of registered organisations of employees to consider the plight of the non-unionised in this country per se, because that is not their primary purpose, the fact is there will be many non-unionised employees, particularly in workplaces where there is very low-union density, who will have less protection against unscrupulous employers because there will not be a watchdog, a third party, to consider whether in fact they are being paid lawfully. What we are talking about here is whether a representative is allowed to consider whether an employer is lawfully applying a Commonwealth instrument or an instrument pursuant to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

If the employer is applying those instruments lawfully, there is no reason for the employer to have any concerns. If the employer is not paying the award, the entitlements of a certified agreement or other forms of entitlements that are made pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act, a scrupulous employer will attend to those errors. Does the government want to remove scrutiny of award application for employees because it believes that employers should be able to break the law and unlawfully remunerate employees by not applying employment conditions and certainly by not paying the appropriate rates of pay? Having looked at the way in which the bill would restrict the rights of entry provisions for unions, you would have to conclude the government’s intention is to remove the capacity of unions to police regulation. Therefore, if it is looking to remove the capacity to review, it must want to allow those errors, those unlawful applications of awards, to continue—because detecting those errors is certainly the main purpose behind an inspection of wage rates and conditions at a workplace.

We have heard from government members that this legislation is about stopping violence or unnecessary interruption in the workplace. But I have to say there has been very little evidence put forward by the government that this is a necessary step. As many opposition members have already indicated, nobody in this place condones an unlawful and violent intrusion upon a workplace. Indeed it is the case that, if a representative with a right of entry permit breaches the conditions of such an entry, he or she should certainly lose the right to enter that or any other workplace.

The furphy of the government is to talk about a few limited instances where there have been some disruptions. In the main, thousands of inspections go on without any disruption whatsoever and they are sanctioned by employers because employers, in most instances where inspections occur, have a relationship not only with their employees but also with the employees’ union or unions. So it is not unusual that that arrangement would take place as part of the ordinary business of the day, or certainly of the year. That is why it is interesting that the government is not only bringing forward the provisions of the bill but also proscribing employers from entering into certified agreements which give another organisation right of entry.

This government likes to lecture people on removing third parties from the workplace, but it is in fact the biggest meddler of all when it comes to preventing employers agreeing to certain conditions of employment with employees and their representatives. Therefore, in my view, this bill is really about focusing on the weakest in the work force. Areas that are densely unionised and where the work force is relatively strong will have no problems with these provisions, to be quite frank.

The areas where there will be difficulties—and I can envisage them now—will be either where there is very low unionisation or where the workplace has no history of collective negotiations. The purpose, it would seem to me, is to prevent the employee genuinely considering whether he or she wants to be a union member. Take, for example, the provision to restrict the representative to a given room—and not only to restrict them to a given room but to restrict the actual way in which they get to that room. Why would that have such an important purpose? You could say, firstly, it would be to prevent any form of disruption to the business of the workplace, and that is a fair and reasonable request. But I would put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the main purpose for that is to keep the representative who may visit on that occasion away from any employees who may have an interest in speaking with him or her about the union’s role or potential role in the workplace.

Indeed, I think the reason there is a provision about allocating a particular place for that representative to meet with prospective union members, if the representative is there on recruitment business, for example, is to make it almost impossible for an employee or group of employees to visit that union official—if it is a union official—without going past the employer’s office. I am aware of experiences where, after a visit by a union official, employees away from the workplace have said, ‘Look, you don’t expect me and three of my friends to walk up into the lunch room, past the manager’s office, and consider joining a union because, actually, I want to keep my job here.’ That is a reality in some workplaces—not in most, I am glad to say, and certainly not in those that are run by fair and scrupulous employers. But certainly in those workplaces where the employer thinks employees have no right of representation there is a genuine fear that to entertain the notion of wanting to belong to a union may not be in their interests if they are seen by their employer. That is a reality. The tight provisions of this bill, if enacted, would make it very difficult for employees to consider the option of enlisting in a union.

The other restrictive provision that in practice would be unworkable has already been raised by some members; indeed the member for Brisbane raised it. How could you visit a workplace of 10 floors and get to every floor in two visits if you are only able to have two visits in a 12-month period? That is an obvious problem with the drafting of the bill. Another problem is if there is shiftwork. How is it that a union representative who seeks to recruit—and that is really where the two visits per year restriction is applied—can allow an opportunity for all employees to consider discussing with him or her the option of joining the union if there are three shifts in that workplace? Obviously they go to the day shift and hang out in the lunch room and then go to the afternoon shift. That is twice in the day to get the two shifts, and they cannot go back then for a year and a day, as I understand the provisions of the bill. Clearly, the restrictions that apply prevent the capacity for a union to have reasonable access to employees who may or may not wish to join the union.

As others have said, the fundamental concern that this side of the House has with respect to this bill is that there are clear contraventions of ILO convention 87, which is about freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, and of convention 98, the right to organise and collectively bargain. There is no doubt in my mind that the fact that an employee would have to disclose their union membership to their employer so that the employer could have a single list of union members is in breach of the conventions I have just mentioned. The fact that the employer would be able to prevent any provision entering any certified agreement would also restrict the capacity for unions to operate at any workplace where this act would apply. Having looked at this from beginning to end, there is no doubt in my mind that this bill is about trying to reduce the capacity of Australian workers to organise. It is pretty simple, and it is as simple as that. It is about trying to reduce the capacity to join an organisation of employees that is registered under the act—that is, an institution recognised by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This act is trying to prevent employees even having access to consider joining that organisation. Indeed, by removing the capacity for right of entry to be a provision of a certified agreement the bill also restricts the capacity for that group of workers and their union or unions to bargain collectively. And to compel employees to disclose their union membership is fundamentally at odds with the right to freely associate, the freedom to belong to a union. So these consequences that will flow from the enactment of this bill are fundamentally at odds with ILO conventions that we have ratified and that this government says it supports. Therefore, I can see that down the track there will certainly be challenges to the capacity of these provisions to apply as a result of their clear breach of ILO conventions.

I join all other opposition members in opposing this bill because it is really about diminishing the capacity of unions to organise, particularly in the new workplaces. What we are seeing and have seen over the last 15 or 20 years is a shift from old economies to new economies. The effect of that has been, admittedly, that highly unionised workplaces have been closing down because of the nature of the changes to work and industries, and new enterprises have grown, many without a great deal of union presence and that would still be the case. In the end it is up to those employees whether they wish to join a union, and that is as it should be. It seems to me that these provisions are making it increasingly difficult for employees in this country to make a fair choice and to feel that they have a choice and are able to decide whether they can belong to a union that may represent them in negotiations.

In this bill, along with the many other bills that have been introduced in this place in relation to employment matters in this and the last term, we see the government’s agenda naked. It is about stripping away the entitlements of ordinary working people. It is about trying to remove the machinery that currently exists and has existed for many years, if not decades, and that recognises the rights of organisations of employees registered under federal acts to represent Australian workers in negotiations whether centrally or at the workplace level. I oppose this bill. I call upon the government to reconsider. I do not hold out any hope, given the Prime Minister’s view on these things. I can only say to those people who will be adversely affected by its enactment that Labor will one day, I hope, have an opportunity to prevent this bill and, indeed, revoke it if it becomes law.