Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the Treasurer’s statement on the budget and indeed to the member for Cowper, who just recently contributed to this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007 and cognate bills. What you did not hear, of course, as the member for Cowper went through his shopping list of achievements and successes of this budget, was talk in any way, shape or form about industrial relations—the new radical, quite extreme and unfair set of laws that will make it a lot harder for ordinary working families. None of that was mentioned by the member for Cowper. But you can be assured of this, Mr Deputy Speaker: there are many workers in that electorate who are very concerned about the way they will be treated as a result of the legislation that was put through.

The member for Cowper is no different from any other government member who refuses to acknowledge that the extreme provisions of the Work Choices act will wreak havoc in certain workplaces, particularly those unorganised workplaces where people are most vulnerable. I think it is very important, therefore, that, when we debate the benefits or otherwise of the 2006-07 budget, we do put into the mix the adverse effects that are likely to flow as a result of those extreme industrial relations laws. As I said, that is something that you do not see government members wanting to debate.

I have had the good opportunity to travel to a series of seats throughout the country on behalf of the federal parliamentary Labor Party’s task force into the effects of the Work Choices act. I have had the great opportunity to listen to many people—workers, church groups, community organisations, small businesses, unions—tell me their stories about the concerns they have about the legislation, about the way it will change the workplace as we know it and indeed about the way it will cower our workforce. Faced with the choice between a $10 tax cut and having my right to challenge an unfair dismissal removed, I know as a worker which one I would want to receive: the protection afforded under law to challenge an unfair dismissal. An unfair dismissal may leave me without a job, which would not allow me to look after my family, to pay a mortgage, to pay rent and to put food on the table. On the other hand, I will receive a miserly $10 a week. And for many Australian workers, that is all they will receive as a result of this budget.

There is no doubt that there has been some tax relief as a result of the budget, but it has certainly not flowed through as a great windfall for people. This is the highest taxing government in Australia’s history. Therefore, all it is doing is giving some of the money back that it has been collecting over these last 10 years. So we should not get too carried away by the figures. It seems to me that the Treasurer was carried away with his own budget. Nobody seemed to be as happy about the budget as the Treasurer. Clearly, there are areas that were not addressed. In a time of economic prosperity, in an unprecedented time of wealth as a result of the minerals boom, the government should be looking at investing in our infrastructure, investing in our people and ensuring that we are well placed to grow as a society and as an economy into the future. I do not think the government addressed those things in the budget two weeks ago.

It is important to note the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply speech. The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said it is critical that we address the child-care shortage in this nation. The proportion of Australian women with children participating in the workforce is one of the lowest of that demographic amongst all OECD countries. There is a clear requirement that we increase the likelihood that that demographic—that is, women with children—are able to choose to go back into the workforce. That will not happen unless there is affordable, quality child care. The announcement of the Leader of the Opposition to provide $200 million to establish more than 250 child-care centres on primary school grounds seeks to fix a fundamental problem—that is, notwithstanding the number of notional child-care places that are allowed under the current system, there are not enough places for families to send their children. There are not sufficient child-care services to enable women in particular to return to the workforce and participate, ensuring that our economy is strong.

I guess that should not surprise us. The government’s view about child care is not a well thought out one. They have not had much regard for the notion of child-care services. They have not realised, for example, how difficult it is for child-care centres to attract quality staff, given the relatively low wage levels that they are able to pay. If you were to compare the wages of child-care workers—given the quality, responsibility and qualifications required to undertake the care of children—with those of any other professional group in society, they would be the loser on every count because historically they have not been valued by this country. The government have failed to address this fundamental problem in child care in our country by failing to understand that we need to elevate the importance and status of child carers to a point where they are seen as highly valued professionals. That is unfortunately not the case today.

It is also important to note that the Leader of the Opposition clearly brought into his budget reply speech industrial relations matters. You cannot talk about the benefits of a budget without looking at the difficulties that families will experience as a result of becoming precariously employed. Think about this for a moment. If unfair dismissal laws have been removed, which they have been pursuant to the Work Choices act for at least four to five million employees, will there be such a thing for those employees as permanent employment anymore? If an employer has the capacity to dismiss an employee for any or no reason and that employee has no recourse to challenge that decision on its fairness then what we have in this country is an extraordinary proportion of the workforce with no tenure whatsoever. They have no capacity to argue that they are permanently employed and therefore have the right to challenge their sacking if unfair.

As we know, the government’s new laws for unfair dismissal—which the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said we would tear up if elected to government—are not about trying to sack every employee in Australia. What they are about is trying to threaten either implicitly or otherwise every employee in this country so that they do what the employer wishes when it comes to negotiating future employment conditions. It is important to note that the combination of the government removing a no-disadvantage test from the preceding act, the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and replacing it with the Australian Fair Pay Commission standard—therefore allowing employers to remove all but five basic minima from any employment conditions—providing the capacity to sack for any or no reason will compel employees to choose to trade down their conditions in order to maintain their employment. That is the evil twin effect, if you like, of those two industrial relations provisions, which are now in the very extreme, pernicious and unfair legislation introduced into the House last year.

It is therefore critical that, if we are to look at whether the government has been fair and decent to the community, if we are to compare how well it is governing and how fairly it is treating the citizens of this land, we look not just at what tax cuts there may have been but at how the families of this nation are faring as a result of other decisions that have a great bearing upon their future as employees as much as as taxpayers. In most circumstances you would feel yourself worse off if you picked up $10 in a tax cut but went to work knowing you could be sacked without cause by your employer or, indeed, knowing that you would have to accept wage and condition cuts. That will occur in many workplaces in the country.

We have a government—the highest taxing government in our history—which is willing to pay back some of that money in the form of tax cuts but which, whilst it is doing that, is enacting the most extreme, radical, fundamental change to our industrial relations system since Federation. And you will not hear a government member try to defend that in too many places.

Look at all the brochures that are put out by the government backbenchers across the country—brochures with the Prime Minister and those backbenchers on the front, with paragraphs describing certain policies of the government and the way in which the government is handling so many matters. I have yet to find one that mentions industrial relations—certainly not one that is going out to the electorate at large. There might be some targeted brochures going out to some constituents, but I have yet to see a brochure addressed to an electorate at large which tries to defend the Work Choices act in the community. They cannot defend the indefensible, and so they will not try.

This is critical because, whilst the act has now been in effect for only six or seven weeks, there is no doubt that there will be great changes to our workplaces throughout this year and next year as a result of the legislation. There is a long way to go, but already we are seeing signs of employers beginning to impose their will upon employees unfairly. That forces good employers to consider doing the same. We now have a very coercive regime, which allows bad employers to act badly and forces good employers to consider doing the same. That is the real nub of this legislation. It is coercive insofar as it forces employees to accept the worst. But, in some ways—unintentionally or otherwise—it is even worse than that, in that it forces good employers to consider doing bad things to their employees so they can maintain their business.

I have had discussions with a series of people from small businesses who have said to me, and to others, that they do not want to cut the wages and employment conditions of their staff. They know they have the whip hand; they know they can negotiate and are far more powerful than their employees in these small businesses, but they do not want to cut the conditions of their staff. They are concerned that if their competitors in that region, that town, that community choose to do so, then they are faced with this dilemma: do they cut conditions accordingly, in a similar fashion, or do they risk losing their business and, thereby, risk their employees losing their jobs?

The term ‘race to the bottom’—a catchcry we hear many a time—is not always explained to people. It is a term coined by economists that denotes driving wages down by effectively cutting labour costs and shifting those costs over to profits. You are beginning to hear it now in places that have probably never mentioned it before, because this country has had a history of maintaining a decent floor for minimum conditions and wages. We have had a history since Federation of believing in fairness when determining employment conditions under the federal and state systems.

So whilst the Treasurer may want to take great comfort in providing the tax cuts he did in the budget two weeks ago, I think it is fair to say that there has been a great level of angst amongst many families because of the changes in IR. The effects of that IR legislation have only just begun to be felt by many people in the community. As the consequences of the act unfold, there is no doubt that it is likely that it is going to get worse, not better, for many people.

It is also fair to say that some people have the capacity to negotiate conditions, but they are a very limited few. Some people have that capacity, because the scarcity or level of their skills or the remoteness in which they work may provide them an opportunity to bargain and maintain their employment conditions or possibly even to reach higher conditions. For the bulk of the workforce that will not be the case. And when there is an economic downturn, things will get very bad for those employees.

I do not have many people in my electorate who will receive the high tax cuts that media commentators and politicians—including myself—will receive. I represent an electorate in Western Melbourne with quite below-average household incomes, and they are not great beneficiaries of the Treasurer’s budget two weeks ago. I listened to the member for Cowper talk about the fantastic grants he is receiving in roads and other areas. I am not sure about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but my electorate is receiving very few grants in the areas of transport and education and the like. I am sure we all do argue for our electorates, but I would argue on merit that my electorate and the constituents that reside within it do deserve some grants and some support in the areas of education, health and transport. But they are not in receipt of those grants which certainly seem to be going to Nationals’ seats and other seats of the government. That is of grave concern to me.

Having looked through the budget, the one thing that we really needed was the upgrade of the Calder Highway to remove the ground-level intersections. That never came about. Unfortunately, there will be more fatalities and injuries on that freeway as a result of the failure by the Commonwealth to spend the money—only $25 million—that would fix that problem.

That is just one problem. I could list a whole series of problems that could be addressed by this government, if it were not focusing on the marginals and were instead, as it should be doing, focusing on the marginalised. There has been a song and dance about the budget, but I have to say that it has not satisfied my electorate at all. (Time expired)

See this speech in context