Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Today is the first anniversary of Work Choices. This legislation was conceived in secret, forged from the Prime Minister’s own ideology and designed to abolish long-held rights of employees in this country. These harsh industrial laws have fundamentally shifted the power in the workplace to the employer. It is industrial law that removes employees’ protections against unscrupulous employers and law that removes fairness for hardworking Australians.

Why is it that I say that the law was conceived in secret? In September 2004, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister introduced the coalition’s industrial relations policies. At no point on that occasion did the Prime Minister mention Work Choices. In fact, most if not all of the pernicious provisions in Work Choices were not mentioned by the Prime Minister. We know why the Prime Minister failed to mention those provisions. It was because he knew the public would not accept them.

After the election, after the government was found to have the majority in both chambers, the government chose to radically alter its election commitments and introduce Work Choices, which weakened the industrial umpire; provided for the automatic removal of penalty rates, overtime rates and shift loading; and saw the end of career paths for most workers. Indeed, it went on to allow for the removal altogether of the no disadvantage test and it removed unfair dismissal laws for more than four million workers in this country. None of these things were mentioned by the Prime Minister in the election campaign in 2004.

The Prime Minister wonders why 60 per cent of people now think he is arrogant. He should consider his behaviour in the way he decided not to mention any of the provisions of Work Choices before the election and then chose in this parliament to impose those provisions on the people of Australia after the election. He said one thing before the election; he did another thing afterwards.

Let us look, then, at the only figures the government has allowed us to consider: 100 per cent of all AWAs have removed at least one award provision; 63 per cent have removed penalty rates; 52 per cent have removed shift loading; and 46 per cent have removed public holiday payments. For the last two days the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations have inexplicably refused to release any further information on AWAs. The Office of the Employment Advocate, which provided the figures initially, is no longer allowed to provide the public with information on AWAs.

Why has the data dried up? Why is it that the information is no longer forthcoming from this government? Why does the government deny the release of data that could substantiate its assertion that AWAs and Work Choices are good for workers? The answer must be that the government knows otherwise. The government always believed that AWAs would drive down the conditions of employment and would drive down wages. Indeed, they are the only results that we have had since the introduction of Work Choices. That is why the data has dried up. That is why the government now refuses to reveal any further statistics on this particular area of public policy.

Why would a government remove the no disadvantage test from the statute books if the new law was not designed to disadvantage? Why would a government fail to protect long-held entitlements if the intention was not to get rid of them? We have already seen the government use Commonwealth funds to force universities to push AWAs. We know that through the introduction of the higher education workplace relations requirements they are forcing universities to impose AWAs. If they choose not to, they will lose Commonwealth funding.

Let there be no mistake: any employees employed by bodies dependent upon Commonwealth funding are also at risk. That includes teachers, nurses and childcare workers. The Prime Minister may have pledged yesterday that he will not force nurses into accepting AWAs, but he never mentioned Work Choices before the election, so why should we believe him now when he says that nurses will not be forced into accepting AWAs? If AWAs are so good for employees, why would nurses not want to pick them up? Why would nurses not want to go onto AWAs if AWAs were such a good instrument for employment conditions in this country? We know why: Work Choices is a failure and the government refuses to accept that. (Time expired)

See this speech in context