Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

This must be a humiliating backdown for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. On Tuesday, in a highly dismissive manner—in the high-handed, arrogant manner that is becoming a hallmark of this government—the minister accused me of ‘content-less filibuster’, as I sought to point out the flaws, the inadequacies and the complexities in the government’s Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. But oh, no—the minister would have none of it. Thirty-seven amendments later, the inconsistencies, the inadequacies and the complexities have been exposed for all to see. I pointed out to the minister the significant problems that the mining and construction sector faced because of uncertainty over employees on AWAs. I asked what would happen to those workers under Labor’s laws. Given the project-by-project basis of employment in these sectors and the evidence from the Senate inquiry—and it took the coalition to force a Senate inquiry—I took the minister to that precise evidence from the construction and mining sector. She just dismissed it out of hand.

It is clear that there would be workers under Labor’s proposed laws who would not be able to be re-employed under an AWA, could not then be employed under one of Labor’s individual contracts and then would have to fall back on the awards. If there were no applicable award, they would have to fall back to the minimum wage and the National Employment Standards. That is the position that the Labor government presented as its legislation, and that is the position that the Senate inquiry’s dissenting report said was untenable. In relation to the Senate report: isn’t it an interesting fact that the majority report from the Labor senators contained all of the evidence about the inconsistencies, the complexities and the uncertainties but made not one recommendation to amend the bill? Obviously, somebody has pulled someone else into line—somebody has overridden the minister’s high-handed attitude towards this bill. There were workers in the construction and mining sector who would have been left in an abyss, according to the evidence, but the minister just dismissed my concerns—dismissed them out of hand. The government has now backed down and moved amendments to address the very issues that were so arrogantly dismissed in this place.

The government’s amendments on interim individual contracts now present the following regime. We have a new individual contract introduced by Labor. We now have the situation where the cohort of workers to whom these new Labor individual contracts can be offered has been extended to workers who would not previously have been able to access them, so we have had an extension of the range of employees that can be offered Labor’s individual contracts. We know, through the evidence given at the inquiry and the minister’s admissions in this House, that not only can existing AWAs exist indefinitely but also there are now new, broadened, enhanced individual contracts that can continue indefinitely. If the employee and employer are happy with the terms and conditions of such a contract, they can extend its life indefinitely. It is not true, as Labor keeps suggesting, that there will be no individual statutory agreements in Australian workplaces after 2010 or even 2012—they can go on indefinitely. If these agreements are so evil, as the minister keeps contending, why is Labor introducing its own individual contracts and, through these amendments, extending their reach? Because it knows that choice and flexibility in the workplace have led to greater employment opportunities and greater productivity and respond to the needs and circumstances of 21st century workplaces. Why else is Labor introducing its own individual contract, enhancing that contract’s reach and ensuring that it can continue indefinitely?

In one of the most extraordinary developments in the Senate last night, the Labor senators voted to retain the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws. Labor senators voted to retain the status quo. In other words, Labor wants to hold on to the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws. They were given an opportunity by the Democrats to roll back the unfair dismissal laws that the minister says present an opportunity for employers to dismiss workers. (Time expired)

See this speech in context