Senator FERGUSON (3:38 PM) —I present the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator FERGUSON —I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator FERGUSON —I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator Ian Campbell —Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I want to make it very clear to the Senate once again that the taking note of a report—even though it has been done—which has been referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Commit tee via the selection of bills process is a clear breach of the standing orders. This report is listed for consideration by the Senate within a couple of sitting days. The standing orders have determined that if a bill is referred to a legislation committee then it will be tabled and `received by the Senate without debate'. We are now about to embark on a debate. I understand from talking to the opposition that they are determined to debate this, and clearly Senator Ferguson would want to put the government's view in such a debate.

This is a practice that is pursued regularly and a standing order that is defied regularly—a very sound standing order, I might say, for those senators who like to see the Senate get on with its business in a timely manner—to embark upon a debate on a matter that is listed on the Notice Paper within, as I understand it, two sitting days. I will, I indicate, refer the use and misuse of this standing order to the Procedures Committee. Perhaps it may be better to come up with a standing order that has the respect of all senators because this one is continually abused.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order.

Senator O'Brien —Madam Deputy President, on the point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order because leave was given by the chamber for this process to take place.

Senator O'Brien —I ask for leave to respond to that statement.

Leave granted.

Senator O'Brien —Briefly, the situation is that, having been requested to pursue the noting of this report, I did so at the whips' meeting this morning and understanding was reached. In fact, I was informed at that time that Senator Ferguson intended to seek leave to take note of the report, so I hardly think it is fair to suggest that he was doing so simply because the opposition was proposing to do the same. I remind Senator Ian Campbell that it would be quite in order for a senator to speak to the motion that the report be printed, and that would allow an opportunity to pursue the same course. But perhaps this is a more open and honest way of doing it.

Senator Ian Campbell —It is an abuse of the standing orders.

Senator O'Brien —I do not think it is an abuse, Senator Campbell. If a motion is moved there is an opportunity to speak on it, as I understand it. That has been exercised here before.

In terms of referring the matter to the Procedure Committee, it has, in most cases, been rather orderly when these matters are done by leave. I would have thought that the Procedure Committee would have regard to that. The opposition and others have, from time to time, sought leave to note particular committee reports. Leave has been granted on most but not all occasions, and this is no different.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It is the will of the Senate to allow this to be debated by leave.

Senator FERGUSON —Before I commence, can I say that I made no request at the whips' meeting. This is something that I found out since then.

On 11 August the Senate referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee for inquiry the provisions of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 . The committee has looked at over 530 submissions and held eight days of hearings in four states and in Canberra. As all honourable senators will know, inquiries into legislation tend to attract far more submissions from individuals and organisations who oppose the legislation than from those who support it, and this inquiry has been no exception. An orchestrated campaign by the ACTU saw a great many like minded submissions, including pro-forma letters, received by the committee.

The committee's terms of reference broadly required it to look at two matters: the objects and impacts of the current Workplace Relations Act, and the provisions of the amendment bill. In regard to the first part of its terms of reference, the majority report concludes that the existing act has successfully implemented a further evolutionary stage in the reform of labour relations and has contri buted significantly to wages, employment and productivity growth over the past three years. In fact, Senator Murray confirms this in his minority report when he talks about five tests for the effectiveness of the 1996 reforms and identifies in each case favourable outcomes. Senator Murray goes on in his minority report to point out that these were the key economic criteria that were set by Labor for the existing act, and the act has clearly delivered. Significantly, the act has contributed to historically low levels of industrial strife.

Those who allege that the existing legislation has had undesirable social consequences have failed to make their case. To the contrary, there is evidence that the existing legislation has had very positive social effects. With regard to the second part of the terms of reference, the majority report concludes that the amendments proposed in the 18 schedules of the bill introduce more flexibility into wage fixing agreements, simplify negotiation and dispute resolution processes and advance a culture of change in workplace relations through stronger and more effective freedom of association provisions.

Much of the evidence submitted to the committee by unions on both the operation of the Workplace Relations Act and the potential impact of the provisions contained in the amendment was unfavourable. In particular, they claimed that the legislation's consequences would include reduced job security, less equality of income distribution, increased pressure on families and a more adversarial employment relationship. Again, the unions failed to establish a causal link between these alleged consequences and the existing act or the proposed bill. Interestingly, the most frequently complained about provision related to the diminished role of unions in the proposed new workplace agreement negotiations. I will return to this issue in a moment.

A number of submissions received by the committee gave both broad support for the legislation as well as support for the legislation in detail. Some individual employers gave evidence, but most were content to allow their national bodies to represent their point of view. There was a general agreement from the business community that both the Work place Relations Act and the current proposals were important steps in the evolutionary process of industrial relations reform, ensuring that Australia would be able to compete more effectively in the global marketplace. This evolution began with the legislation passed by the previous Labor government and has been pursued and developed since 1996.

Some witnesses, while generally happy with the broad direction of government reforms, were of the view that they did not go far enough, claiming that further deregulation would be needed if Australia were to substantially reduce its structural unemployment rate. This is consistent with the spirit of the bill, which acknowledges the need for continual and evolutionary reform. Senators who remember the long debate over the 1996 bill, which was subsequently passed by the Senate, will recall the gloomy predictions made then which have proven unfounded, yet the same critics persist in peddling the same myths. To the contrary, the evidence shows that since the implementation of the 1996 act we have enjoyed a greatly improved economic climate, to which this act has contributed.

The thrust of the new legislation follows the logic of incremental workplace reform over the past decade. The most important aspect of this policy has been to dismantle a monolithic labour market so that it can more flexibly service a widely diverse economy. Labour market and wages regulations policy over past decades was based on the notion that there was a single Australian economy with some segments subsidising others. The advent of the global economy rendered this policy both inoperable and incompatible with Australia's long-term economic interests.

The committee heard evidence of the campaign 2000 strategy planned by the AMWU, a drive by this union to institute a concerted industry-wide negotiation for a wage raise next year. This strategy fails to recognise that profit and productivity performances across the manufacturing sector vary. Market forces, in particular export markets, and shifts in investment and currency values, among other factors, determine the capacity of industry to pay higher wages. Despite massive improvements in productivity and flexibility provided under the current act, it is clear that some unions have failed to recognise that a campaign like this is likely to result in retrenchments and industry closures.

The reality of this inquiry is that it has been ideologically driven by the ACTU and their representatives in this place. The Labor senators here owe much to their union masters, so much so that they have included a quote from practically every union and its supporters in what they call their minority report. That should ensure preselection support for many of them for a long time. Jennie George, the President of the ACTU, actually wrote to a committee member and listed the unions and supporters who want to give oral evidence to the inquiry. She said:

There are a number of matters I would like to raise with you re the Senate inquiry. Could we please make provision for some time to be set aside each day for individuals to make statements on the impact of the act.

She also says:

I note that Wollongong has been scheduled on the tentative agenda for October the 27th.

This is before the committee had decided on and confirmed any dates regarding where it was going to be. She thought they needed a second hearing day in Sydney, which we acceded to, as we did in Melbourne. Otherwise, she felt that many key presentations would be missed. She then recommends the list of unions that she wanted to attend. There are others, including Professor McCallum, the Young Christian Workers Movement, the Uniting Church, non-English speaking women, Asian women at work and the Fair Wear Campaign. They were all there, and we heard the lot.

She also said that she would like the ACTU to have an opportunity to respond on the last hearing date. We did not have hearings in Adelaide, but she said that she wanted Keith Hancock and Barbara Pocock to give evidence. We made sure that they had the opportunity to come to Canberra so that they could be heard. In Perth, she noted the people she wanted there. In reality, it was driven by the ACTU and was continued by the Labor senators in this place. We heard them all ad nauseam say that they support the submission of the ACTU.

Another pro forma letter said in general terms:

I don't know why you sent me this letter in my mailbox saying I must write a letter to the committee by Friday the 17th to let you know I am not working, which I still want to. I know what I did was wrong, but if I do get my job back again, I won't go to any other things but work. And I want to stop this legislation being passed in the Senate, so this is my letter.

If getting people to put in pro forma letters is not some form of coercion, I do not know what is.

We need to remember that the union movement represents less than one-third of the work force in Australia. Their `just say no' campaign is really just a Jennie George recruiting drive to try to boost a falling membership, which has now fallen to below one-third of the work force. Many of those who say they are supporting the `just say no' campaign have no idea what is in the bill. They are just blindly following union propaganda, and that was obvious from the committee hearings. The Labor Party report mentioned the Victorian government submission, which was received after the committee had completed its initial report.

I firstly thank those members of the secretariat, who worked very hard in a very short time frame to make sure that this report was possible. They worked very hard during the hearings and in writing the report. I also thank senators on this committee for the way that they conducted themselves during this inquiry. There were a number of hearings. I thank them for the way that they conducted themselves. (Time expired)