Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, it certainly is. Mr Speaker, this is the one part of the parliament in which we can actually hold the government, day-to-day, accountable. We are obliged to operate in accordance with standing orders, and we are obliged to operate in an environment in which you, as the Speaker, have to preside impartially over our activities here. You know very well that we have some considerable complaints that are reflected in the statistics that have been put forward by the member for Perth, when he moved this dissent motion, about the balance with which both sides of this House are treated. But one thing is absolutely clear in our standing orders, and it is this. When we put forward questions, we are allowed to incorporate within those questions factual material necessary to make the question intelligible. We are not allowed to include arguments, inferences, imputations, insults, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter.

It happens that with this particular question the most devastating part of it is this. With regard to this AWA offer which has been offered to Commonwealth Bank employees, either to take it or to take an agreement settled in 2002 with a wage level now five years effectively out of date—so either to take that five years out of date collective agreement or this AWA—they are obliged to give various things up. We can stand up in this chamber and say that 38 or 46—or whatever the number is—entitlements can be removed and leave the question at that or we can read out those entitlements so the public can see quite clearly what ordinary, reasonable conditions that in their own places of employment they would understand they have access to are being removed from Commonwealth Bank employees who can either accept that or go back to a wage level established in 2002—no further agreements to that of a collective variety.

It would come as a surprise to many Australians to have read out to them that what would happen as a result of an AWA being signed up to is that it would remove performance payments, higher duty payments, skill utilisation loadings, relieving allowances, field staff duty allowances, on call allowances, first aid allowances, interpreter allowances, district allowances, meal allowances, car allowances, intersuburban travel allowances, telephone allowances (on call), telephone allowances (use of home telephone), travelling expenses, removal expenses, temporary accommodation expenses, transfer expenses, assistance for employees transferring long distances, travel allowance, domestic travel, travel between work and home, premises renovation allowances, basis of payment, payment for working overtime, breaks, shift allowances, meal breaks, meal allowances, overtime, weekend and public holidays, transport arrangements, annual leave loadings, public holidays, dry cleaning, tea breaks and minimum breaks.

Many people out there listening to that would immediately make the assumption that heavy damage was being done to the rights and entitlements of Commonwealth Bank workers, and a mere upward adjustment of the 2002 pay rates of some 10 per cent might well not cover that, particularly when collective agreements now being signed up would contain that level of wage rise anyway, without dispensing with those allowances. For the public to understand the full effect of that, they actually have to have that list read out to them—there is no alternative, if there is to be that comprehension and if we are to get around the trickiness of this Prime Minister when he explains himself in this place. He is a very effective user of the last word in this place to slip, slide and exaggerate as he puts in place a piece of legislation that terminates the ordinary living conditions of the average Australian householder. The average Australian householder would be shocked if they realised that they were going to be obliged to give up overtime rates, meal allowances, weekend and public holiday arrangements, annual leave loadings, public holiday allowances and the like. That is why you have to be dissented from, Mr Speaker—so they can understand that.

See this speech in context