Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in support of the Fair Work Bill 2008 tonight. This bill delivers on Labor’s election commitment to restore fairness and balance to Australia’s workplaces and to put an end to the extreme industrial relations laws of the Howard government. During the 11½ long years of the Howard government, there was an erosion of the protections of our industrial legislation and rights at work affecting all Australians. Contrary to the points of view put forward by some members opposite, the conservative-led attack on the rights of Australians at work has not been at the heart of some ideas contest between the major parties since Federation; it is a phenomenon of more recent times, championed by Liberal leaders such as John Howard, Jeff Kennett and Richard Court. These men unleashed an ideological attack, principally directed at trade unions in this country, but the real victims were the Australian ethos of a ‘fair go all round’ and, consequently, ordinary working Australians.

The previous government and current opposition fail to understand that it was our strong industrial legislation that enshrined the principle of a fair go. It was a conservative government that introduced the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. At the time, the leader, Alfred Deakin, said:

It is sufficient for my purpose if it establishes the necessity of bringing both employers and employees under the control of the law, and of endeavouring to obtain the creation of an impartial tribunal which shall mete out even-handed justice between them.

He went on to say:

Its object is to forbid tyranny on both sides, and as far as may be possible, to introduce into our industrial system a new standard which shall apply to all the persons concerned, subject to the interests of the whole.

Balance and fairness were the values at the heart of our industrial system, values that were swept aside by a series of workplace relations laws introduced by the previous government, the most extreme being Work Choices in 2005. And what a series of workplace laws they were—a string of Orwellian bills. I describe them as Orwellian because the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four could not have done a better job on some of the titles of the Howard government’s workplace relations amendment bills. Terms like ‘protecting the low paid’ meant opening the way for employees on current award safety nets to have their wages and conditions stripped back; ‘fair dismissal’ meant allowing small business to sack employees unfairly without allowing the industrial umpire to become involved; ‘simplified agreement making’ meant reducing the scrutiny of the Industrial Relations Commission when making agreements; and the ‘registration and accountability of organisations’ meant imposing a regime on unions that the Howard government was unwilling to apply to large corporations or businesses. The only choice Work Choices provided was to sign or resign. In most cases, the coalition government’s workplace relations legislation was driven by ideological extremes—none more so than Work Choices.

Each member opposite has in some way conceded that Work Choices is dead, that Labor has a mandate to introduce this Fair Work Bill. However, their speeches illustrate that the ideological drive that created Work Choices still lives on in their hearts. I urge them to read Labor’s election policy, Forward with Fairness, so they understand the nature of the commitments given and the mandate received by Labor at the last election. Australians want safe and fair workplaces, where the realities of family life are appreciated and the dignity of working people is respected, and where everyone has the right to a fair go no matter how they are employed or engaged, be they employee, contractor or small business person. They want a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. They want the right to chose to bargain collectively, and they want an independent umpire to ensure that everyone participates in good faith.

Prior to entering the parliament in 2001, I spent most of my working life as an advocate for working people. Many of those years I spent as an industrial officer with the Miscellaneous Workers Union, a large union with members employed in a diverse range of industries and occupations, many low paid, many part time and the majority of whom were women. They were not industrially strong and their work skills were often undervalued. They were working people who often struggled to make ends meet. They are sometimes described as the invisible workforce, many of whom the member for Hume referred to tonight. They were childcare workers, cleaners, hospital workers, laundry workers, security guards, carers and home carers—people who are more often noticed when they are absent than valued for the work they perform.

Like other members in this House, I heard many personal stories from constituents about their experiences with Work Choices. I observed firsthand the impact that the coalition’s industrial relations policies had on these people and on people such as those I referred to in the union. In many cases their wages and standards of living went backwards. Much of our lives are involved with work, whether working for someone else or for ourselves. The nature of work, the composition of the workforce and the skills required are constantly changing. So are the patterns of work and the nature of employment arrangements.

But there was one constant, at least until the advent of the Howard government’s so-called Work Choices legislation: the minimum award safety net. No matter the type of employment arrangement, there were legal minimum payments below which it was unlawful to go. Work Choices changed that. It allowed employment arrangements to go below the award minimums. The Howard government’s own review of AWAs in May 2006 revealed that 64 per cent had cut annual leave loading, 63 per cent had cut penalty rates, 52 per cent had cut shift work loadings, 51 per cent had cut overtime loadings and 48 per cent had cut monetary allowances. This is what happens when you let the market rip in workplaces around the country.

That is why I am pleased to be part of the government that is introducing the Fair Work Bill. This bill creates again a comprehensive safety net that it is unlawful to go below. This bill provides unfair dismissal rights. I have to say that it was the loss of protection against unfair dismissal that offended many Australians, certainly in my electorate of Hasluck, especially parents and grandparents concerned about their children and their grandchildren and the kinds of workplaces of the future.

This bill also provides the low paid in our community with a real opportunity to bargain through the multi-employer stream. I represented for many years the contract cleaning industry in Western Australia. I have told the story before in the parliament that I oversaw a situation in Western Australia in late 1997 and 1998 where for the first time I witnessed the hourly rate go backwards for cleaners. People unfamiliar with the contract cleaning industry may not know but the majority of costs for an employer in that industry are labour costs. When the award safety net was in place, the competition between contract cleaning companies was about the service they offered or the techniques associated with their cleaning. After the introduction of the Howard government’s AWAs and individual contracts, suddenly the competition opened up on the labour costs that were associated there. What we witnessed in Western Australia was the driving down of the hourly rate from $11.10 per hour to $9.20. This was in modern Australia and I cannot believe that members opposite think that that is an appropriate, fair or balanced system of industrial relations.

Last November, Australians voted for Forward with Fairness, Labor’s election policy. They voted for a new system of industrial relations, one that would see a fair and comprehensive safety net of minimum employment conditions that cannot be stripped away; a system of fair workplace bargaining that requires the parties to bargain in good faith; protection from unfair dismissal; enhanced protections from discrimination and freedom of association; an ability to balance work and family; and the right to be represented in the workplace. This bill will also see the establishment of Fair Work Australia, a new independent umpire for advice and support for all workplace relations issues and enforcement of legal entitlements.

This bill represents a new beginning for Australian workplaces, a new industrial relations framework based again upon balance and fairness. I do not intend to go into each of the provisions of the bill in detail as that has been addressed by many other speakers. Tonight I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and all the others involved in the drafting and preparation of this legislation. I also note and commend her on the consultation and involvement of a broad cross-section of parties involved in Australian workplaces in the development of this legislation.

I know that not each of those parties will get everything it wants in this legislation, but I guess one could argue there is no better indication that what this bill represents is balance and fairness if not everybody thinks they got what they wanted. Here tonight I want to urge members of the opposition to support the bill’s passage not only through this House but also through the Senate, to consider closely any proposed amendments that are put forward, given the broad cross-section of consultation and involvement in the development of the legislation, and not to be tempted again to go down the path of ideological opposition based on some paranoia about trade unions and their power in Australian society.

In concluding my comments tonight, I thought it was appropriate to again quote Alfred Deakin, the man who introduced the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1904, and some of the comments he had to say to opponents of that legislation, as his words resonate with truth even today. He said:

This bill starts with a confession that it is based on a humanitarian interpretation of the principles and obligations which form the very basis of civilised society. It leaves to its opponents the creed whose God is greed, whose devil is need, and whose paradise lies in the cheapest market.

I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context