Senator RYAN (Victoria) (3:24 PM) —I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague Senator Cash, and her comments as well as those of Senator Cormann, to take note of answers given by Senator Arbib in question time today. It never ceases to amaze me, when it comes to workplace relations, that all we hear from the government are comments about process. All we have heard is why the minister cannot act. All we hear is about various clauses in the legislation. But this is process absent of outcome. Let us put this issue in context: a pay rise of almost average weekly earnings for unskilled labourers who are members of the MUA, which is bargaining on their behalf—not a union with a track record of what you would call good faith bargaining—and all you can say is they complied with the act. The Labor Party does not care about the outcome here.
What we saw 30 years ago in this country was a wage breakout that led to inflation, which destroyed jobs. No-one is better off when we have a wage inflation spiral that leads to job losses. But the Labor Party have never cared about the unemployed in this country, because there is no union for them. The previous government got unemployment in this country down to 3.7 per cent—a level that only 15 years ago we were told would be impossible to ever reach again—at the same time as more and more women were heading into the workforce. But what do the Labor Party do? They re-regulate the labour market. They provide for what they call good faith bargaining, which, as anyone knows—the company involved in this matter better than anyone else—is nothing more than a legal fiction. How, on any reading of the English language, does asking for a pay rise of over $100,000 qualify as good faith? It does not. It cannot.
What we see opposite is a government that is focused entirely on procedure and on falling back on process rather than considering outcomes. They throw around the word ‘fair’, when this outcome, if nothing else, will show that these procedures do not lead to fair outcomes. They talk about productivity, yet they are re-regulating the labour market. How on earth does a $50,000 pay rise, representing nearly a one-third increase, assist productivity when there are no productivity trade-offs and the company and union said so? They talk about bargaining, but how is it bargaining when there is a gun at your head? The company made that clear. Apparently you can only have an unfair bargaining position when it is with a preferred supporter of the Labor Party! They do not care about unorganised workers; they only care about workers who are members of their unions. They do not care about people who are losing their jobs because of inflation, people who lose their jobs when costs like this are passed through the supply chains of our economy.
The average wage for a transport worker is just over $55,000. The people in this sector are earning three times that, and they increased that by $50,000 based on the behaviour of a union with a far from stunning track record in fair bargaining and fair behaviour in industrial relations in this country—what was once referred to as a weapon in the arsenal of the Labor movement in this country—and there have been no productivity trade-offs. What we will see is pattern bargaining. But again it will not meet the definition of ‘pattern bargaining’ in the act put up by the Deputy Prime Minister but we know it is pattern bargaining because the same thing happens in various workplaces.
But this government does not seem to care. It does not care about the consequences, because it is only concerned about paying off its union friends and rewarding those who supported it to the tune of $50 million in the last federal election. They must be pretty upset about the 90 per cent drop-off in the last 12 months, with only a $5 million pay-off by the trade union movement to the Labor Party. But I am sure we will see that increase in the next AEC returns.
Senator Ronaldson —It was $11.5 million.
Senator RYAN —It was $11.5 million; thank you, Senator Ronaldson, for correcting me.
I conclude on this point: the act put in place by the government does not lead to fair outcomes, it does not have a fair process in place for employers and it does not lead to results that are going to improve the overall economy. Over the next 12 months we are going to see exactly what the consequences of this government’s approach to industrial relations are. This government will carry that weight—it will be lead in its saddlebags—as unemployment increases and a very small number of people benefit. For example, one thing that the government has not mentioned—and maybe we should have asked Senator Arbib about this; we saw a report only today—is that, if you happen to be a teenager or working late at night in the retail sector or in the fast food sector, your wages are being cut under a ruling by Fair Work Australia. It is because you are not a member of the MUA, a preferred constituent of the Labor Party.
Question agreed to.