Senator CHAPMAN(5.42 p.m.) —What we are seeing this evening in this motion being debated at the behest of Senator Jacinta Collins is the creation, effectively, of a straw man which Senator Collins and her Labor colleagues on the other side in this debate then seek to knock down. That reflects what the Labor Party generally has been doing with regard to the much-needed industrial relations reforms and in particular the workplace relations bill put forward by the new Howard government.

They are setting up this straw man by making a whole range of false claims about the government's policy and about the effects of this legislation and then they knock down those false claims that they have created. What we are hearing from the Labor Party is a farrago of lies about the government's intentions generally and about this legislation in particular. That should be said at the outset in dealing with this particular motion.

I notice that Senator Jacinta Collins does not seem to be here for the debate. This is her motion, her item on the agenda that is being debated today. Where is she?

Senator Abetz —Not interested

Senator CHAPMAN —She is not interested. She made her speech. She has set up the straw man and she has tried to knock it down. Having listened to what she said, she did not even do a very good job of knocking down the straw man that she herself created. Having done that, she is not interested in the rest of the debate. She is not interested in what happens to this motion. She made her speech and she has left the chamber. So much for the bone fides of Senator Jacinta Collins as far as industrial relations matters are concerned.

One of the greatest needs in this country currently is the creation of jobs. We desperately need the creation of more jobs. Where is the greatest potential for job creation in this country?

Senator Ferguson —Small business.

Senator CHAPMAN —Exactly. You have read my mind, Senator Ferguson. Small business provides the greatest job creation potential in this country. Among small business, one of the sectors that has the greatest potential is the tourism and hospitality industries. It just so happens that last night I was in Adelaide representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, John Moore, at the national excellence awards presentation dinner for the hospitality industry.

Senator Forshaw —I bet you didn't get one.

Senator CHAPMAN —I was not there for that purpose. I was there to present one, and I probably did a reasonable job in doing that. In the course of what were necessarily very brief remarks to that audience, I made the point that the goal of this government in assisting small business, particularly in the hospitality industry, was to get rid of unnecessary regulation and red tape that wears down their capacity to provide services and have efficiency and productivity.

In particular, I highlighted the importance of this government's proposed industrial relations reforms to provide a better, more direct and flexible relationship at the workplace between employers and employees. In the middle of those remarks, I was interrupted by sustained applause and verbal support from that very large audience of small business people in the hospitality industry. Those in the growing hospitality and tourism sector know that this legislation will provide the opportunity for them to create more jobs because of the fact that they will be able to operate more effectively and efficiently. That is hot off the press, first-hand experience of the benefits that this legislation will provide for job creation in this country.

As I have said, the Labor Party have set up a straw man as far as the legislation is concerned. They are putting out a farrago of lies about this legislation, saying that maternity leave will be removed from awards where it exists; that workers' wages will be cut; that the legislation will apply the principle of equal pay for equal work of equal value only to the base award minimum; that the legislation is an attack on part-time workers and seeks to casualise the work force—we heard that a moment ago from our Labor colleague; that employers will be able to vary the hours for part-time workers at will; that this legislation involves the removal of restrictions to lessen protections for part-time workers; and, that federal agreements can be overridden by state agreements. Each one of those propositions is an absolutely false claim.

Those opposite who have spoken on this motion have shown a feigned concern about the position of women under this legislation. Let me remind the Senate what a high priority the labour movement, particularly the trade union movement, places on women's rights: they don't place any priority on it whatsoever. Let me remind the Senate of the actions of Jenny Booth of the textile and clothing workers union when she marched into a clothing factory in Sydney.

Senator Ferguson —It's Anna Booth.

Senator CHAPMAN —I apologise, it is Anna Booth. She said, `The arrangements that you, the women workers in this factory, have entered into voluntarily with your employer cannot be allowed to continue. They are breaking down the hard-won gains of the union movement.' What were those arrangements that had been entered into voluntarily, at the request of the female workers in that factory? The arrangements were to allow them all to start work earlier in the day, to work their normal working hours, and to finish work earlier in the day, so that they could blend together their work and family responsibilities. They would be finished work in time to either pick their children up from school or be at home when their children arrived home from school, thereby meeting both their family and work responsibilities. This agreement was reached at the initiative of those working women.

Senator Ferguson —They have gone quiet.

Senator CHAPMAN —Yes, those opposite become very quiet when they hear the truth. That arrangement was voluntarily entered into and agreed with the employer. In marched Anna Booth who said, `The union will not let you do this. This is breaking down our hard-won gains.' What absolute nonsense. What were the hard-won gains? We know they were really the power of the trade union movement. All the trade union movement cares about is its own power and its capacity to manipulate in the workplace. It does not care about the actual circumstances and situations of the workers at all. That is clearly demonstrated by the way it acted in this case.

Senator Ferguson —And the workers did it by themselves.

Senator CHAPMAN —Indeed, they did. They entered into that arrangement voluntarily, at their own request. So much for the concern of the labour movement and the trade unions with regard to women's rights in the workplace in particular. The real concern of the trade union movement is the maintenance of its own power: firstly, to maintain their power as organisations; and, secondly, to maintain the power of their elected officials, who are far distant from the rank and file members who work in enterprises at the coalface. They are all about maintaining their own power.

We know only too well that the Labor Party in this place and around Australia is merely the creature of the trade union movement. It is the trade union movement that started and established the Labor Party. The Labor Party has always been here to do the bidding of the trade union movement. That is why they set up this straw man and this farrago of lies about the government's proposal. That is exactly what Senator Jacinta Collins has done today in bringing forward this motion for debate. She is doing the trade unions' bidding in trying to undermine this legislation.

This legislation has the trade union movement frightened because it involves some loss of power for them. It will require that trade unions provide real and genuine service to their members; otherwise they will continue to vote with their feet and walk away from the trade union movement in droves, as we have seen happening in recent years, with trade union membership in free fall. Under this legislation, unless trade unions start to provide genuine services for their members, that loss of membership will continue apace. That is what the trade union movement and the Labor Party are frightened about. That is their real motive in wanting to undermine this legislation.

Let us deal further with the labour movement's treatment of women in the workplace, indeed, in the union movement itself—because that is the essential issue that this motion seeks to raise. Despite the fact that, at long last, the trade union movement has a female president, there is no doubt that it is a male dominated institution. Its creature, the Labor Party, has not matched its own rhetoric with regard to female representation in politics.

Senator Abetz —Who did Martin Ferguson knock off?

Senator CHAPMAN —A female candidate, as I recall. In practice, neither the Labor Party nor the trade union movement match their rhetoric on the role of women in both politics and industrial matters.

The existing archaic industrial relations system that this legislation seeks to reform has traditionally given primacy to the interests of full-time adult males. As I have said, the trade union movement is dominated by full-time adult males. Women are very poorly represented in trade union hierarchies. Of course, unions negotiate deals that are consistent with their own agenda—the agenda that has been set by those dominant males.

Another example of the way in which unions have neglected the circumstances of women in the work force is their resistance to the insertion of part-time provisions in awards. These part-time provisions, of course, would be advantageous to female workers.

Senator Mackay —How?

Senator Forshaw —Yes, how?

Senator CHAPMAN —Because there are a number of women who would like to work part-time. It would enable them, again, to blend work and family responsibilities. Women would like those provisions to be inserted in awards to give them that opportunity—and the trade union movement resists it. As I have said, the union movement has resisted those part-time provisions being inserted into awards. On those rare occasions where agreement has occurred for such provisions, the unions have hedged on quotas and the minimum and maximum hours of work. Again, of course, I come back to the example of the clothing factory.

It is also worth noting that the awards which have been the last to make provision for part-time work have been in those indus tries that are dominated by what might be described as the macho unions—unions in the transport and building sectors that desire to keep women out of their particular industries. So a direct consequence of this failure on the part of the trade union movement has been an increase in casual part-time employment.

In August 1988 casual part-time employment represented 12.8 per cent of the work force. By August 1995 that had risen to 17 per cent. Casual employment does not provide for pro rata benefits with regard to safety net provisions—and again that shows up the failure of the trade union movement in protecting females in the work force.

By contrast, permanent part-time employment, where there is some opportunity to have protections in the system, only increased from 6.5 per cent to 8.8 per cent over that seven-year period—a very modest increase compared with that very significant increase in unprotected casual employment. As a consequence of that, we find that marginalised groups, such as women, have no predictability as far as working hours are concerned, or access to sick leave, or access to maternity leave. Indeed, existing awards still contain substantial restrictions on non-casual part-time work.

That is the record under the trade union movement; that is the record under the previous Labor government. In marked contrast to that, the new Howard coalition government, through its workplace relations bill, will reverse that bias in the current system which favours casual work as against permanent or regular part-time work. The legislation will promote predictable hours and will allow for family responsibilities and child-care arrangements. It will also provide pro rata conditions for sick leave, carers leave and maternity leave. It will also enable a greater involvement of permanent part-time workers in the established work force. It will also offer the additional benefit of providing improved training and career opportunities for part-time workers.

So there is the contrast: the absolute failure of the trade union movement and the previous government with regard to part-time workers, who are predominantly females, as against what this government and its legislation offers. That needs to be considered very seriously.

Of course, another reason for the Labor Party's opposition to this legislation is that it likes to foster a mentality of dependence. Woe betide anyone suggesting that people can manage their own employment affairs. That is the attitude of the Labor Party, and we have heard it expressed in the debate today—`They cannot manage their own affairs.'

What sort of attitude is that towards mature adults? We let them manage most of the rest of their lives. We let them manage their financial affairs, their family affairs, their marriage and the bringing up of their children. But when it comes to work, the Labor Party does not believe that people can manage their own affairs. It does not accept that people are capable of making reasonable and fair arrangements with their employers.

However, I would refer back to what I said at the outset of my remarks. I gave the example of those females in the clothing factory who initiated changes and sought and obtained the agreement of their employer with regard to more appropriate working hours—and it was the union who came in and knocked that down. Do not tell me that people cannot manage their own workplace affairs. If they want to do that, they ought to have the choice of doing it, they ought to have the freedom to do it.

If people want someone to represent them in those affairs, they should also have the choice of doing that. If they want a trade union to represent them, they should have the right to do that. But if they do not want to be represented by a trade union, they should not be forced to be so represented against their will. If they want a solicitor or some other negotiator to represent them, they should have the right to choose that form of representation as well—and they also should have the right to choose, if they so wish, to do their own negotiations.

That is what this legislation offers people: that flexibility, that freedom and that choice, in marked contrast to the existing legislation. Of course, again, that is why this legislation is so important but why the trade union movement and its Labor apparatchiki oppose it. They know that the trade union movement will have to offer real service and real benefits to its members if it is to retain their interest and their support.

Let me put on the record some of the other benefits that this legislation—and it is legislation now, it has been introduced—offers to people. It offers a comprehensive safety net, and that is spelt out in the legislation. As far as the proposed Australian workplace agreements are concerned, there is a comprehensive safety net spelt out in the legislation, and of course there is also the continuation of awards that provide the optional safety net.

That safety net relates to allowances, penalty rates, loadings, the hours of work and time that work may be performed, annual and long service leave together with sick and bereavement leave, and also carers leave. There is also the legislated minimum for maternity, paternity and adoption leave, provision for public hospitals and redundancy pay. All of those safety net provisions are there in the legislation.

The legislation also provides, as a minimum condition, equal pay for equal work of equal value. In particular, the safety net provisions will emphasise meeting the needs of the low paid. There is protection in the legislation against unfair dismissal. Employers will be specifically prohibited from dismissing employees on the grounds of sex, marital status, family responsibilities or pregnancy.

The legislation also provides very severe penalties against employers who apply duress in relation to the making of Australian workplace agreements. Again, let there be no suggestion that employees will be forced into these agreements against their will. That is specifically proscribed in the legislation, and heavy penalties will apply.

As I said a few moments ago, one of the important parts of the legislation is giving workers the freedom to choose who will represent them in negotiating their workplace agreements—whether that be a union or some other consultant they might choose with expertise in the area or whether they choose to directly negotiate themselves. Again, that is a marked contrast to the present legislation and the record of the previous Labor government. Their employees had absolutely no choice; they were forced to be members of trade unions and it was only the trade union that was given the right to negotiate on their behalf.

Often employees were not just forced to join a trade union, but also forced to join a trade union when they would have perhaps preferred to join a different trade union. That is a very important choice that we will give them under this legislation. By removing the `conveniently belong' clause from the legislation and by allowing for de-amalgamation of unions, we will allow the establishment of new unions, which will more directly and more effectively represent the interests of those particular workers who choose to have them established and choose to join them. That is a very important part of the legislation.

I come back to the issue of female workers. No woman has received equal pay under the existing system when the Industrial Relations Commission has made orders in regard to over-award payments. That is another shortcoming of the existing system, which our legislation will overcome. Let it not be said that this legislation in any way threatens the standards that workers might attain. In particular, it does not threaten the standards that female workers might attain.

In the process of developing this legislation and bringing it into the parliament, the Minister for Industrial Relations, Peter Reith, has had several consultations with women's groups and has adopted several of their recommendations. He has made it clear to these groups that the door is very much open to suggestions. The women's groups themselves have acknowledged this. I wish to indicate some of the groups which the minister has consulted. This is by no means an exhaustive list. He has had meetings with the Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Pay Equity Coalition, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Australian Non-English Speaking Background Women's Association, the Women's Economic Think Tank and the Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment.

It is worth noting that as a direct consequence of those meetings, Ms Eva Cox, the co-convenor of the Women's Economic Think Tank in Sydney, only as recently as yesterday said, `full marks to Peter Reith' with regard to the degree of consultation that he has undertaken with women's groups in relation to this legislation. Again, women have been very much to the fore in terms of the drafting of this legislation.

It is worth contrasting the minister's determination to consult on this legislation with what happened under the previous government when at midnight it ratified ILO convention 158 on unfair dismissal without any consultation whatsoever and then incorporated that convention holus-bolus into the 1993 legislation. As a result of that we know only too well that many employees—in particular, small businessmen—have been forced to pay out on bogus unfair dismissal claims. In addition, many people have been denied jobs as a result of the employment-deterring nature of that system. That is a contrast between this government and the minister, Peter Reith, and his consultative process and the jackboot way in which the previous government operated by ratifying that ILO convention on unfair dismissals at midnight without any consultation whatsoever.

As part of their strategy to attempt to undermine this legislation, the opposition parties—not only the Labor Party, but the Greens and the Democrats—have referred this legislation to the Senate Economics References Committee, not the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that was set up for the very purpose of examining legislation. They bypassed that and sent it to the references committee. Professor Judith Sloan made some very pertinent comments about that in the Australian this morning. However, that is what they have done and that is the process which will now have to be publicised. There is absolutely no doubt at all that this reference is part of the delaying, filibustering tactics of the opposition parties on this legislation.

If we are to go through this process, the very least that the Labor Party ought to do, including the shadow minister for industrial relations, Mr McMullan, is make public the more than 200 amendments which Mr McMullan claims he has drafted for this legislation. He has only made a very few of them public. He claims he has more than 200 amendments. If he has, let us have them on the table, let us see them and let us have them before this committee so that they can be considered as well as the proposals of the government.

If we are going to have this process whereby Senator Ferguson, Senator Crane and I, as well as opposition senators, are going to be shunted all over Australia to hear supposed evidence on this legislation following the receipt of written submissions—

Senator Conroy —Consult. He is talking about consulting.

Senator CHAPMAN —At least those people who are making submissions to the committee in writing and who then want to appear to give verbal evidence ought to have the right to examine those amendments, as well as examining the government's legislation, and then express an opinion on the impact of those amendments as well as on the government's legislation. If the committee process is to operate properly and effectively, then that ought to be the way it works. I call on Mr McMullan to release all of those amendments, let the committee have them and let those who are making submissions to the committee see them and make submissions on those amendments as well as on the legislation.

Senator Campbell —What is he hiding?

Senator CHAPMAN —Exactly. What is he hiding? They ought to be provided to us now. Again, the failure to do that simply highlights that all the Labor Party is doing in regard to this legislation is a filibustering exercise to seek to undermine it. What is being done through that committee contrasts markedly with the way we, when in opposition, treated their so-called Industrial Relations Reform Bill of 1993. We opposed a substantial part of that quite bitterly because we knew that, instead of taking industrial relations into the 21st century, it was returning it to the 19th century. Despite that, we dealt with it constructively through relatively brief committee hearings and we did not conduct this filibustering exercise all over Australia.

That committee examined that legislation with respect to three terms of reference only, compared with the 15 terms of reference that the present opposition parties have put before the Senate Economic References Committee. That is a clear indication that, when in opposition, we dealt constructively with legislation; the present opposition is dealing destructively with legislation. That simply shows that the Labor Party is not genuine as far as this legislation is concerned. Let me draw my remarks to a close by quoting a former President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a former Prime Minister of this country and Labor Party leader, in relation to the goals of this legislation. What he said late in May was:

. . . for its part, the trade union movement must recognise . . . the right of an employer and an employee, freely, to enter into individual contracts underpinned by an independently determined safety net.

That is a clear political message to the Labor Party to face the realities of the 1990s, yet it is the message that the present Labor Party wants to ignore. It is the message that has been given to them by one of their former leaders, yet they clearly want to ignore that message.

The workplace relations bill put forward by this government offers exactly that opportunity, as it also offers a wide range of opportunities to employers and employees to get together and negotiate the most appropriate terms and conditions of work, subject to that independently determined safety net, so that they can enjoy the shared benefits of their particular enterprise, recognising that together they can make an enterprise successful and that they should share the success of that enterprise. They should get rid of the `us and them' mentality that for so long has been fostered by the trade union movement, the Labor Party and our current archaic industrial relations system.

Senator O'Chee —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Before Senator Mackay rises, it has been drawn to my attention that Senator Conroy seems to be eating or chewing something in the chamber. It has long been held that eating, chewing—even Strepsils—or smoking is contrary to good parliamentary conduct and I suggest you direct him to leave the chamber or swallow it.