Senator NETTLE (12:57 PM) —I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Improved Remedies for Unprotected Action) Bill 2002. This is one of many bills currently before the Senate from this government to make significant changes to the Workplace Relations Act. Despite what the government says, all of these bills have a singular purpose. They are designed to undermine the capacity of workers and the unions to look after the legitimate needs of working Australians. Both this bill and subsequent bills should be rejected in their entirety, and the Greens intend to do that.

This bill seeks to repeal section 127(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and to replace it with a harsher and more complex regime. Section 127(3) of the act currently states in relation to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission:

The government seeks to replace this section with a requirement that applications must be heard within 48 hours, otherwise the employer can seek interim orders on the basis of a set of criteria—and later I will go into the skewed nature of that criteria in favour of the employer's situation.

The Greens will not accept this legislation. We recognise that there is an imbalance, that the Howard government and some actions of the previous Labor government have skewed the industrial relations system so far in favour of the employer that a change is needed to take us back in a direction where the rights of working men and women are protected by our industrial relations system, rather than the industrial relations system continually being used to create more opportunities for employers to diminish the rights of working men and women in Australia.

The Greens do not support moves through amendments or deals—we saw one last night, and I am not quite sure what we are going to see today—that seek to find a middle ground in relation to the government's industrial relations agenda. This government has skewed the balance so far in favour of the employers that there is a non-existent middle ground that some deals and amendments seek to find to put what it perceives as some balance back into this government's industrial relations agenda. The government's agenda is unambiguous. It cannot be mitigated with minor changes and amendments; it needs to be rejected.

There is a sense of deja vu in many pieces of industrial relations legislation that come before this parliament. We have seen many of the provisions in this bill in particular before. The government tried to enact these kinds of provisions in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs) Bill in 1999, and the Senate at that time rightly rejected the proposals. The government tried again to make similar changes with its Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 2000, and the Senate again knocked it back. They were rejected and they should be rejected again.

The Australian people do not want the kind of antiworker and anti-union legislation that the Howard government continually proposes. They look to their representatives in the Senate to ensure that their views are listened to, because the Howard government has not listened to the views of the Australian people in relation to industrial relations. The Greens will certainly listen, and we hope that all senators will, in rejecting this consistent agenda of industrial relations reforms from the government.

Let us make no mistake: this is another of the government's tired attempts to attack workers and unions by enacting biased and draconian industrial relations legislation. It is part of their ideological attack against working people. They are running out of puff and they have run off course, but there is a federal election on the agenda so the Howard government are attempting to ramp up this attack on workers and on industrial relations. We know that recently the Liberal Party wrote to big business across the country warning of the industrial relations agenda of opposition parties and arguing that only a coalition government would defend and institute industrial relations laws that employers could use against employees. At the same time the Liberal Party asked these companies for big corporate donations to their Millennium Forum fund—their election war chest. The government may have the backing of big business when it comes to their crusade against the working men and women of Australia but they certainly do not have the backing of the Greens or any other people on this side of the chamber.

The government has sought in the past to whip up hysteria around these issues in the lead-up to an election. We saw that with the royal commission into the building industry which was instigated just before the last federal election. It did not work and yet the government is still trying to whip up hysteria around this particular issue. To start this first full week of parliament with six industrial relations amendments on the agenda is a clear indication that, in the lead-up to the election, the Howard government is again trying to whip up hysteria around industrial relations. Australians will not fall for it, the Senate will not fall for it and the Greens certainly will not fall for it. It needs to be seen for what it is: an unjustified, electorally motivated attack on Australian workers.

I want to look more closely at the provisions of the bill. This bill seeks to amend the Workplace Relations Act to require the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to hear and determine applications for orders under section 127 within 48 hours as far as practicable. It seeks to enable the commission to make an interim order if it is satisfied that the action is unprotected, if it has not formed a view and is unable to determine the application within 48 hours or if the action is likely to commence within 48 hours. It also seeks to amend the act to specify the matters the Australian Industrial Relations Commission must take into account when deciding whether or not to make an interim order.

At the outset let me say that there is clearly no need for this legislation. There is no difficulty, particularly for employers, in being able to seek section 127 orders from the Industrial Relations Commission. Most applications for section 127 orders are made by employers rather than by unions. This is despite the fact that industrial action such as lockouts by employers is on the rise. The University of Sydney looked at Australian Bureau of Statistics data in relation to this issue and concluded that industrial action such as lockouts is on the rise. They concluded that the proportion of industrial disputes which are lockouts is currently five times greater than it was in 1998. Previous changes to the Workplace Relations Act, such as allowing the use of lockouts to pressure employees to sign individual contracts, have facilitated lockouts by employers, so it is not surprising that we are now seeing the results of the Sydney University study saying that lockouts are on the rise.

Employers will be the ones to benefit from changes to section 127 applications. The provisions contained in this bill have been rejected before, so it is fair that we ask the question: what has changed that the government believes we need to look at this again? Has there been increasing industrial action in this country? Has there been an increasing number of section 127 orders requested of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission? The answer to both of these questions is no. There has been no increase in industrial action in Australia. In fact, the opposite has occurred. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of working days lost through industrial disputes continues to decline. In the 12 months to March 1996, 86 working days were lost per 1,000 employees and by March 2003 this fell to 31 days lost per 1000 employees.

Are the number of section 127 orders on the increase? According to uncontested evidence provided by the ACTU to the Senate inquiry into this bill, they are not. The ACTU looked at Industrial Relations Commission decisions over several years and found that 33 orders were issued in the year 2000, 26 in 2001, 35 in 2002 and, at the time of their evidence in September, only 25 in 2003. According to the ACTU's submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill:

In other words, industrial action, whether legally protected or not, is usually a legitimate response to genuine workplace grievances. The figures of declining industrial action and the small number of section 127 orders show how successful the government has already been in removing the rights of workers and undermining unions' ability to represent their members. No change as outlined by the government in this bill is needed. The change that is needed is for workers to be returned their full rights to organise and to strike. The industrial imbalance wreaked by the Howard government needs to be redressed in favour of the working women and men of this country.

I want to look now at the requirement in this bill to hold a hearing within 48 hours and whether this is necessary. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission's annual report for 2002-03 shows that 85 per cent of section 127 applications are first heard within four days. According to people who regularly appear before the commission, a large proportion of these are heard within a day or two days. This is down from 2000-01, when 85 per cent of the first hearings were held within five days. The commission already endeavours to hold hearings as quick as possible, as it is required to do in the act. Section 127(3) of the act already requires the Industrial Relations Commission to hear and determine section 127 applications as soon as practicable.

If the government is really that concerned about increasing the speed with which applications get to a hearing, it should be increasing the resources of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission—not forcing through an unrealistic and unnecessary requirement of 48 hours. Hamstringing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with a 48-hour requirement will only undermine the effectiveness of the Industrial Relations Commission in resolving disputes by removing its discretion to prioritise its work and to address applications in the most appropriate manner in each circumstance.

It is when we look at the proposal for interim orders in this bill that the Howard government's industrial relations agenda becomes clear. Changes to the act would effectively enable employers to seek an order immediately ending strike action or other industrial action before an adequate airing of the facts and reasons for the dispute has taken place. Employers would use this legislation to attack the right of workers to strike by obtaining interim injunctions and avoiding having to address the issues at the heart of the dispute. Section 127(3A) would allow the commission to make an order for industrial action to stop or not occur even if it had not yet formed a view on whether the action was protected and that an application cannot be heard within 48 hours.

The unbalanced criteria in this bill that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission would have to give consideration to when deciding to make an interim order favours employers and enables them to obtain immediate orders against their workers. Section 127(3C) would mean an employer could argue industrial action should stop if, for example, industrial action might damage their industry and the action was ongoing or a sequence of action.

Workers do not take industrial action because they think it will help the employer's bottom line. In fact, that is the very point of taking industrial action—so that issues raised in a dispute are resolved in the heat of industrial action. Sections 127(3A) and (3C) would enable employers to stop industrial action before having a full hearing on all the relevant matters related to the application and would undermine workers' capacity to effectively ensure the problem that caused the industrial action is addressed. Employers would be quite happy to discuss the issues under dispute forever as long as the industrial action is called off.

Employers will always try to get legal weapons to use against their work force, but this does not mean the government or the Senate should support them in doing so. The agenda of this government, backed by big business, has already divided this country and entrenched inequality. Precarious and casual work is expanding while employment security and full-time work is declining. People are working harder for less as government services in the form of health and education services are starved of funds and decline in quality. Meanwhile, we see executive salaries skyrocketing and big business profits increasing.

The Greens recognise that we need to turn this around. Rejecting this legislation and the government's ongoing campaign to increase industrial relations powers for employers is a significant first step in turning this around. We need a decent and fair industrial relations system that is centred on conciliation and arbitration—not the division and conflict that is becoming the signature of the Howard government. The Greens are the only party in this parliament that unequivocally support workers' right to strike in our party policy platform. The withdrawal of one's labour in protest is a fundamental human right. The Greens are proud of their support of workers' rights and proud to have a policy that supports the rights of unions and unionists to take industrial action to protect and promote their legitimate industrial interests without legal impediment.

The lack of necessity for this bill reveals the government's real agenda in putting it forward. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission already has the capacity to make orders promptly and, if appropriate, to make interim orders. This bill is not about enabling the Industrial Relations Commission to work more effectively; rather, it is about removing its discretion and forcing it down a route favourable to employers at the expense of employees. The Australian Greens reject this bill. We see this, like so many attacks from the Howard government, as an attack on the rights of working women and men. It tips the scales of our industrial relations system even further in favour of employers. The Greens will not stand by and watch this happen. We will be opposing this bill.