Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The anniversary of the passage of the Work Choices legislation is anything but a cause for celebration for working Australians. The plight of Mr Leigh Scott, a labourer and an occupational health and safety representative working on an extension to Caulfield Grammar School in my electorate, is a case in point. He was sacked for no reason by the builder, ADCO Constructions. His sacking demonstrates why this anniversary commemorates something that, instead of giving, takes workers’ rights and conditions away. Why would, as the member for Gorton pointed out, this government remove the no disadvantage test if it had no advantage for the employers in these kinds of situations?

Let me dispel the spurious claim made by the previous speaker, the member for Canning, that these workplace laws are about building prosperity and promoting flexibility and choice for both workers and their employers. I do find it a little immodest of people in the government to claim that all the economic prosperity in Australia has nothing to do with the people who actually earn the money and produce the goods, especially with the mineral boom in Western Australia. It has nothing to do with the mining boom and nothing to do with huge demand from China; it is all due to the geniuses over there on the government benches and their workplace legislation! It is absolute nonsense.

During Mr Scott’s tenure as the occupational health and safety representative, there had been no industrial disputes on his site. There had been no accidents. He was punctual. He took no sick leave and always undertook overtime when he was asked. The extension of Caulfield Grammar School is due to be completed in October or November this year, and it was several weeks ahead of schedule. Overseeing his workplace, consisting of 20 labourers, in an efficient and safe manner, Mr Scott was sacked without recourse under the Work Choices legislation and replaced by his foreman’s 19-year-old son. He was told that he was being sacked owing to a lack of work, despite the fact that the extension to the school is not being scheduled for completion for another six months.

Mr Scott is 45 years old, with five children ranging from 12 to 25 years old. Four of his children still live at home. Their mother, Kerry, died of cancer less than three years ago. In addition to his responsibilities—and don’t smirk over there; this is a very serious situation for this poor fellow—he is the sole carer. One of his daughters, aged 15, has been diagnosed with juvenile arthritis and has had to learn to give herself injections to combat it. With all these responsibilities and with an exemplary work record, Mr Scott, a qualified occupational health and safety rep, was unceremoniously replaced as a labourer and as a safety rep without recourse, without the ability to appeal under the Work Choices legislation. Work choices? In Mr Scott’s case, what a joke!

In today’s Herald Sun, in an article entitled ‘When unfair means nothing’, Mr Scott stated:

I want my job back so I can care for my family.

Under the government’s extreme industrial relations agenda, with the Work Choices legislation the jewel in the Liberals’ inequitable crown, firms with fewer than 100 employees are shielded from unfair dismissal claims, however frivolous or utterly unfair the reasons for workers’ sackings may be. Where is the fairness, flexibility, and productivity gain that those opposite rhetorically boast that Work Choices has led to in real-life situations like that of Mr Scott? Having been ahead of schedule and without any industrial disputes, the workers at that place now find themselves without an occupational health and safety representative. Instead of Mr Scott, they have a 19-year-old unqualified boy. How this cosy arrangement contributes to safety or efficiency is anybody’s guess.

Leigh Scott, as a sole carer and breadwinner, contributes to the growing number of Australians under Work Choices who are cruelly given no choice whatsoever. Australian workers increasingly miss out on time with their families. They represent the second-highest number globally, after Japan, in terms of the percentage working about 50 hours a week. Sixty-three per cent of parents work more than 45 hours a week. More than two million Australian workers also work on Sundays—time they would otherwise get to spend with their families, time which most of them are not able to replace.

Under the Liberals’ extreme industrial relations agenda, the ‘choice’, as they term it, is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea—between not spending time with their families and not being able to support them financially. This is a Dickensian dichotomy, which has a qualified and efficient Australian worker—in this case ensuring workplace safety and productivity—now left without a livelihood for no good reason and with no work choices. This is an ‘anything goes’ mentality that is symbolised by this Work Choices legislation.

On the other hand, those on this side are firmly opposed to workers being sacked for no reason and are committed to ensuring that families like that of Leigh Scott will not be abandoned. As everyone in this House knows, when Labor are elected at the next election we will repeal this kind of legislation for the Leigh Scotts of this world.

See this speech in context