Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw the word ‘lied’. Furthermore, the 2006 OECD unemployment outlook report concluded that coordinated wage bargaining at the enterprise level ‘is found to significantly reduce unemployment’. The OECD further concluded that, ‘No significant direct impact of the level of the minimum wage on unemployment is identified,’ and that, ‘The minimum wage could encourage higher participation by helping to make work pay for the low skilled.’ The government has been so blinded by its arrogance it can no longer draw a distinction between untruths and the truth. Sadly, it is our constituents, the Australian workers, who are feeling the impact of this government’s ideological rampage on standards that ensure a fair go for all Australians.

Secondly, one of our further findings was that, contrary to assertions by employer bodies, many small businesses worry about the impact of Work Choices on their employees and on their businesses. They have expressed the concern that Work Choices condones the actions of rogue employers and pressures good employers to take the low-wage road. I represent many small businesses in my electorate of Adelaide and have spoken with many of them, and many others, throughout this task force’s inquiries.

Unlike the government, who come in here and talk pure rhetoric, I am actually interested in what small business owners themselves have to say—and I am giving them their chance to have an input. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have good relationships with their employees and they have expressed concern that the use of Work Choices by their competitors will force them to choose between their employees’ employment conditions and the future of their businesses. Furthermore, the task force found that many employers consider Work Choices to be prescriptive, confusing and complex.

One of these, George Liarakos, is a small business owner who feels threatened by the new changes. A small business owner and pharmacist from Melbourne, George told our task force that the government’s IR laws are unfairly skewed against the interests of employees, they prevent genuine bargaining and they allow competitors to undercut the conditions of employment that Mr Liarakos offers his employees, which will place him under considerable stress to do the same. This parliament should be encouraging best practice in employment relations, not worse.

Who do you think we should believe? Do we believe the government, who would have us believe that workers will not have their wages and conditions cut—though they certainly will not take the time to guarantee this—or do we instead listen to the employers themselves, the employers who themselves are saying that they will have no choice but to cut wages and conditions once their competitors do so? That is what these laws do: they start up the race to the bottom.

Thirdly, the task force found that the abolition of the no disadvantage test means that Australian workplace agreements ignore the inherent inequality in the bargaining relationship between the employer and an employee. The task force considered that AWAs were always unfair, except in the rarest of circumstances. We have seen this backed up in the Senate estimates, where it was revealed that 100 per cent of these AWAs which had been checked since Work Choices’ commencement have excluded at least one award protected condition.

I could talk for a long time about the mounting evidence which is showing that these changes are driving down the wages and conditions of most Australian workers. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise that you cannot be as generous with your time as I would like, but I will say one thing: the government did not give the Australian people the opportunity to have their say on these laws. This is what the Labor Party is doing now and you can be sure that this is what the Labor Party will be doing into the future. We will be ensuring that there will indeed be a time when the government will be forced to listen to the views of the people, that is, when they have a chance to be heard loud and clear next year on election day. You can mark my words that I and members on this side of the House will be making sure that this mounting evidence of the detrimental effects of these laws on Australian workers is well known to all workers and to those in Kingston. (Time expired)

See this speech in context