Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister said this of the Treasurer, ‘Well, I think that:

... commitment to industrial relations reform is an article of faith of many people. Peter Costello to his credit has been a warrior for industrial relations reform. He was after all, involved in the Dollar Sweets case. He was a founding member of the HR Nicholls Society. Peter is no wilting violet when it comes to a tough position on industrial relations reform. He believes in it very strongly. So it is not just me, although it is true that I am very passionate about it.

So there we have the Treasurer handcuffed to the Prime Minister and every Liberal and National Party member handcuffed to the Prime Minister’s extreme industrial relations approach. What do we know about this legislation? We know it is extreme, we know it is unfair, we know it is an attack upon wages and we know it is an attack upon conditions.

What is the context of this disallowance motion? The context of this disallowance motion is that we return to the parliament and what do we see? We see that, courtesy of the Liberal Party, interest rates and petrol prices are up, and wages and penalty rates are down. We also see, courtesy of the Liberal and National parties, that the cost of living is up and wages are down. There is only one way in which, in the end, these laws will be thrown out, and that is to elect a Labor government—and that is the choice the Australian people will have in the last quarter of next year. Do they want 15 years of John Howard and Peter Costello and extreme industrial relations changes or do they want a fair industrial relations system under a Labor government? That is the choice that is now staring the Australian people in the face.

Let us have a look at a couple of those aspects. Interest rates are up and wages are down. What did the government say about those issues? What did the Prime Minister have to say about those issues in the run-up to the last election, the 2004 election? We know that, on interest rates, there he was with his little banner across every lectern saying that interest rates would be kept at record lows. Millions of dollars were spent on Liberal Party adverts giving an election commitment that interest rates would be kept at record lows. But what do we find the Prime Minister saying in question time when that breach of faith, that breach of promise, is put to him? He says, ‘They weren’t the words that I used.’ We find the Prime Minister using weasel words to avoid a clear breach of promise and breach of faith on interest rates.

What do we know about what the Prime Minister had to say about industrial relations changes in the run-up to the last election? On 28 September 2004, at the Liberal Party’s industrial relations policy launch in Brisbane, the Prime Minister was asked a question about a single national system. The Prime Minister replied:

Well, we’re not setting ourselves that goal ...

He was also asked:

Prime Minister, on industrial relations, the 20 allowable matters that are currently in federal awards. Do you think in the interest of workplace flexibility the Government would consider reducing the number of allowable matters ...

The Prime Minister replied:

Well, we don’t at this stage.

Not only did we hear nothing about these changes in the run-up to the last election, but on two occasions the Prime Minister positively said that he would not do things that are contained in the Work Choices legislation, particularly the attack on allowable matters. So we have a breach of promise, a breach of faith and a breach of trust on interest rates and a breach of promise, a breach of trust and a breach of faith on industrial relations.

When did we first hear about the government’s extreme industrial relations changes? The first occasion was when the government realised arrogantly that it had all power under the sun. It realised arrogantly that it was now in a position to govern for itself and not for the Australian people, that it was now in a position to do the things it had long wanted to do on industrial relations but had been constrained and restrained from doing either by a balance of power in the Senate or because, as the Prime Minister knew in 1996 when he was first elected, he had to hide these things from the Australian public—he had to hide his real intentions from the Australian public. So what do we know about the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Liberal and National parties? They do anything and say anything to get themselves elected or re-elected.

What is the substance or the heart of these proposals and why do these regulations need to be disallowed? At the substance and heart of these proposals is, firstly, an attack upon living standards and, secondly, an attack upon the Australian way of life and Australian values and virtues. From where does that attack upon living standards come? Firstly, the attack upon living standards comes from an attack upon wages through an attack upon the minimum wage and, secondly, through an attack upon take-home pay by attacking penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances and the like—the traditional take-home pay basket of entitlements that very many working Australian families have become used to to enable them to make ends meet. Where is it an attack upon our values and virtues? Where is it an attack upon the Australian way of life? It is an attack upon our values and virtues because it removes fairness from the industrial relations system. It expressly removes the requirement, for example, that the minimum wage, when it is calculated, has to be fair. It removes a strong independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission. It removes sensible notions of a safety net or decent minimum standards.

The fact that at the heart of these proposals is unfairness is shown no better than in the question I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday at question time when I asked whether he had seen last week’s Catholic Weekly and the article titled ‘Bishop brands IR law unjust, unfair’. We have Bishop Manning branding these laws as unjust and unfair in the Catholic Weekly. I do not think you could get a better summary than that. It is interesting to refer to some of the references made by Bishop Manning in the Catholic Weekly. He is reported as saying:

The Work Choices legislation is “manifestly unjust” and unfair and the Government has failed in its duty to promote the common good”.

Bishop Manning said, ‘Employees cannot be treated as commodities.’ He also said that the legislation was weighted too heavily in favour of the employer and that the legislation stacks the scales in favour of the employer, particularly to the disadvantage of vulnerable groups. The message from Bishop Manning, which is a message that we have seen earlier, for example, from Cardinal Pell in respect of the minimum wage, is that central to these proposals is the notion of unfairness. At question time the Prime Minister said, ‘There’s not one Catholic view.’ I am sure the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has referred the Prime Minister to the compendiums of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church to clarify that point, but I will leave that as a matter between the Prime Minister and the minister.

But we have a new example today of unfairness. We have an AWA presented to employees from a subsidiary of the airline Lufthansa—global telesales. That AWA reduces the base rate of pay anywhere from three per cent to 10 per cent and reduces Sunday and public holiday penalty rates. It does not allow any loading for working before or after 7 pm and provides for no guaranteed pay increase during the life of the AWA. The calculations that are made are in terms of a reduction in the base rate of pay, or a reduction anywhere between three and 10 per cent. In terms of the take-home components with those penalty rates, the calculation is on average a 4.9 per cent decrease in the take-home pay. This AWA has been examined by the Victorian workplace rights advocate, and the conclusion of the Victorian workplace rights advocate, in a report which I have made public and which is dated yesterday, says effectively that this AWA is consistent with the legal requirement of the Howard government but is (a) unfair and (b) potentially in breach of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act. So we have a classic example of fairness not flying with the Howard government. It is not fair but it is legal.

Under John Howard, unfairness in industrial relations is legal. So we have a damning report by the Victorian workplace rights advocate on a Lufthansa AWA which essentially says, ‘You can have your base rate of pay reduced by anything from three per cent to 10 per cent, and you can have your take-home pay component reduced on average by 4.9 per cent.’ That might be unfair but it is legal. It might be unfair because of a so-called performance bonus arrangement, and it might be in breach of the state based Equal Opportunity Act. It might be unfair, but it is legal.

That is the latest example of AWAs: wages down. The wages drive is to the bottom. I am sure members will recall that before the winter recess we drew attention to the now infamous Spotlight 2c an hour AWA, where, for the princely increase of 2c an hour, from $14.28 to $14.30 an hour, all of these so-called protected conditions—penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances—were removed. And the calculation showed that a full-time employee who worked on Saturdays and Thursday nights would effectively lose $90 a week for the princely sum of 2c an hour. Over the break we actually discovered a zero cents an hour Spotlight AWA. All of those conditions were shredded for no increase.

That is not to say that I will necessarily put my 2c away, but it does make the point that all of these take-home pay components—penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances and the like—can be removed at the stroke of a pen for no compensation. That is the point. The point which the Victorian Workplace Advocate makes today is that it might be unfair but it is entirely legal under the Prime Minister’s law.

It is not as if the Lufthansa or the Spotlight examples are the only ones floating around. In the most recent quarterly statistics published by the Office of the Employment Advocate we discovered that since the government’s legislation came into effect on 27 March there have been over 41,000 AWAs. Rounding the figures, there were 6,000 AWAs in April, the first month; 13,000 AWAs in the second month of operation, May; and 21,000 during June. We also know, from evidence given at Senate estimates, that in the sample taken by the Office of the Employment Advocate, 100 per cent of the AWAs excluded at least one protected award condition, 64 per cent removed leave loadings, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 52 per cent removed shiftwork loadings, 41 per cent did not contain gazetted public holidays, 22 per cent did not provide for a pay increase over the life of the agreement and 16 per cent excluded all award conditions. We also know from the advice of Freehills—the government’s lawyer of choice—that all of this can be done at the stroke of a pen for minimal compensation, such as 2c an hour, or, more importantly, for no compensation, as is made clear by the zero cents an hour Spotlight AWA, which we drew attention to over the winter recess.

So what choice does this House have today? The House can vote to disallow these regulations and make its first strike by tearing up the government’s legislation and regulations. It will not do that. Liberal and National Party members of this House will handcuff themselves again to the Prime Minister’s extreme proposals. So what will the choice be? When will that real choice arise? That real choice will arise at the next election. And what will we find the Prime Minister saying about industrial relations at that election campaign? I suspect he will do his best, as he has in the past, to hide his true intentions from the Australian people.

But slowly but surely we are flushing him out on that matter. The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 July: ‘We’re not finished with workplace changes: Howard’. That is a quote, Mr Speaker. That headline is no surprise. When did we first come to appreciate that the work that the government had done in industrial relations was not at a conclusion? Senator Minchin, the No. 3 man in the government, went to his soul mates at the HR Nicholls Society and effectively apologised for not going as far as the HR Nicholls Society would have wanted, and indicated that down the track more work would be done effectively to destroy the edifice of industrial relations—including the Industrial Relations Commission generally and awards.

The fact that the government has unfinished business is also shown by the FOI release of the Treasury document, The Regulation of Workplace Relations—current, proposed and for the future, which we obtained through Freedom of Information in November of last year. But when you get to the section about the future—the unfinished business—it is blacked out. The government’s unfinished business is blacked out.

Now the government is resorting to conclusive certificates. A conclusive certificate signed in August of this year indicates that the Prime Minister’s right-hand man, the secretary of his department, Dr Shergold, is now signing certificates preventing the public release of these materials on the basis that it might lead to speculation about possible future workplace relations reforms. The choice will be clear. There will be more of the Prime Minister’s extreme industrial relations changes—every Liberal and National Party member handcuffed to those—and the government with a secret plan to go further, as shown by Senator Minchin, the FOI releases and the HR Nicholls soul mate discussion. The stark choice is between having wages down, interest rates up, and petrol prices up under the Liberal Party or a decent and fair industrial relations system under Labor that respects the rights of individuals and that will ensure that people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. (Time expired).

See this speech in context