Ms JACKSON (5:10 PM) —The member for O'Connor is quite an act to follow in this place. I appreciate that he has been here for some considerable time and that may be why he has lost touch with what is happening at a practical level out in the real world of industrial relations. In fact, I think the Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) Bill 2003 demonstrates, well and truly, that this government has no concrete third term agenda. It is simply putting up ridiculous and ideologically-driven pieces of legislation that offer practically no real benefit to anyone, least of all any who have to operate in industrial relations, human resources or workplace relations—however you wish to describe it. Indeed, the example provided by the member for O'Connor about the trains in Western Australia is, I think, a very good example. Simply trying to increase the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission will do nothing to settle and resolve industrial disputes.

I recall, with some great measure of pride, the reforms that were introduced by the Labor government in 1993, which attempted to introduce, for the first time, a comprehensive framework of industrial relations that allowed for people to take protected industrial action, in certain circumstances, that fostered and encouraged bargaining in good faith. Again, I appreciate that those on the other side may not actually understand what is meant by bargaining in good faith, but they were the provisions that were introduced back in 1993.

This is the second workplace relations bill I have spoken on during this fortnight. I am again going to quote from a former conservative leader in this House, when he introduced the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. It is a shame that the honourable member for O'Connor did not stay in the chamber, because he may have known him personally. He said:

It is interesting to me that that legislation was introduced, as I say, by a former conservative leader in this place and how far the conservatives have removed themselves from that ideology. Indeed, when the member for Kingsford Smith was the Minister for Industrial Relations and introduced the Industrial Relations Reform Bill in 1993, he made the following observation:

That is the kind of ideology behind this Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) Bill.

I want to talk a little about the assumptions that must underpin this bill. When you look through its provisions it seems to me that the minister's approach is that there is no circumstance at all where industrial action, be it protected or otherwise, is justified or somehow appropriate. It seems that the government's assumption is that all industrial action, no matter where or how it comes, is unjustified and wrong; therefore, they need to try and intervene to prevent that. I do not know what, if any, workplace relations experience the minister has in this area. Prior to taking up my place in this House I spent many years in the industrial relations sphere, and it seems to me that the minister has no idea of the current provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. I would like to take him to a couple of those.

First, of course, there is section 127, involving the orders to stop or prevent industrial action. The minister may or may not be aware that applications made under section 127 are not only made by those who may be party to an industrial dispute but also made by those persons who are directly affected or likely to be directly affected by the industrial action. The Industrial Relations Commission have specific powers conferred on them under section 127 to issue orders which are not in derogation of their general powers under the Workplace Relations Act—and that is just with respect to stopping or preventing industrial action.

When you come to the specifics of the commission's powers with respect to suspending or terminating bargaining periods—and these can be found, for the minister's reference, under section 170MW of the current Workplace Relations Act—they set out an incredible number of circumstances whereby the commission may, by order, suspend or terminate the bargaining period, subject of course to providing the negotiating parties with an opportunity to be heard. Those circumstances are set out in some considerable detail in subsections 170MW(2) and 170MW(3) of the legislation.

Again, I would like to point out to the minister the circumstances where the commission may intervene and suspend or terminate the bargaining period. They include where industrial action is threatening:

Any traversing of the commission authorities and precedent with respect to these matters would show that the commission, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, has had regard not only for those principles of fairness and for some acceptance and acknowledgment of the importance of good faith bargaining and goodwill between negotiating parties but also—something which is, far and above, of greater importance—for the public interest. So, Minister, my simple and humble submission to you would be that the kinds of powers that you think are appropriate and necessary, according to what you say in your second reading speech, already exist within the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. I encourage you to examine them, because this legislation is completely and absolutely unnecessary.

What causes me significant concern is that the practical impact of this so-called better bargaining bill will be to effectively remove from a significant number of people in the work force the right to take protected industrial action. The minister himself, in his second reading speech and in his material about the legislation, has specifically referred to the caring professions. I did a little bit of research before coming in here, because I thought that if I was going to have a look at the current provisions of the act I ought to have a look at where section 127 orders have been sought and also where we have had terminations of bargaining periods. I can tell the minister that the overview of the work of the commission in the Annual report of the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and annual report of the Australian Industrial Registry, 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003indicates:

There was almost no appearance of the kind of industries that the minister calls the caring professions. I will come back to that, because there is a good reason for that.

Equally, with respect to applications sought by employers or any of the negotiating parties for the termination of a bargaining period, last year we had the extraordinarily large total of 58. That follows 54 applications made in the previous year. We can see that this is not an issue where employers, unions and employees are begging the government to take the lead and make some amendments. If you take a completely different area such as the family tax benefit and look at the fact that the government has taken nearly three years to do very little, it seems to me that this is an extraordinary step. It is because it is about industrial relations and ideology. This legislation is quite duplicitous in the fact that it effectively intends to remove from the caring professions that right to take industrial action.

People before me have spoken about nurses, child-care workers and carers, particularly in the areas of aged care and disability services. I know those workers very well, and anybody who has had any contact with them knows that not only is the contemplation of industrial action the very last resort; it is a decision that often causes them great distress and trauma. But when no-one is listening, Minister, you do not have many options.

I will give you one example from my own state of Western Australia. It concerns a recent industrial campaign that I have observed and have had some direct involvement in, I guess, through workers visiting me in my office and from talking to employers in the aged care sector. Those forming the backbone of the caring work force in Western Australia—carers in aged care—earn the princely sum of $13.47 an hour. That is $526 a week. In case you did not know, Minister—because I suspect you do not—that is only $50-odd more than the minimum wage. In the MPI I heard member after member saying that we have a responsibility to care for the aged in our community. This is how you judge how good we are as a society, and yet it is all right to pay those workers $13.47 an hour.

Those workers have commenced a campaign in Western Australia, one that has run now for a considerable period of time in many aged care workplaces, to increase their pay by a dollar an hour. It is not a huge sum—we are talking about a dollar an hour, taking them to $14.47 an hour, a mighty $566 a week for a full-time employee. Interestingly enough, the workers have coined a slogan for their campaign: `Who gives a buck for aged care.' They have been very frustrated in their negotiations, and that is because most of their employers—indeed, all of them—are substantially dependent on the Commonwealth government for the funding of their industry. Naturally, we know that the most substantial costs for employers in the industry—other than the red tape and administration, which are running at something like 30 per cent of funding—are labour costs.

What this legislation will do—assuming that their negotiations break down and they ultimately have to take industrial action or determine to do so in pursuit of their claims, which is a right that has been bestowed on the Australian work force since November 1993—is allow any person to make an application to the commission to terminate their bargaining period and their rights to take industrial action. It could be a resident or a resident's cousin—it could be any number of people who are not directly affected by the industrial action. It also ensures the right of the employer—who, frankly, has the power in most of these workplaces—to determine the outcome of genuine industrial claims. All an employer would have to do under this legislation is make an application to the commission to terminate the bargaining period. The people who are taking industrial action care for people, and they would lose their right to take industrial action. That is hardly fair, particularly when we prevail upon these people and continue to rely on their goodwill so that they will provide first-class services to our aged care community for $13.47 an hour. It seems to me that they have a right to improve their conditions and wages.

It also illustrates an example of where multiple employer negotiations are appropriate. I can think of two industries largely dependent on Commonwealth government funding that make that so. Aged care and child care are classic examples of where it may well be in the interests of the industry and, indeed, in the public interest if we were able to have sensible negotiations including the funding authorities to ensure that proper and meaningful, as well as fair, rates of pay apply in these industries. If the minister were genuinely concerned to ensure that there was better bargaining—as his bill is called, although I am used to the Orwellian titles of industrial relations legislation in this place—he would, with our support, amend the legislation to include provisions that require bargaining in good faith, which is consistent with our international obligations. I urge the minister to reconsider this legislation. The only reason he put forward for this bill in his second reading speech was:

I do not think that is the view of the caring professions.