Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to proudly support the Fair Work Bill 2008. The significance of this bill should not be underestimated by anyone in this country and certainly not by those on the other side of this House. For far too long this country has had industrial relations laws that are punitive. The previous government had an obsession with driving down workers’ wages and conditions, removing the basic freedom to belong to a union and ensuring inequality in bargaining.

We have heard from the member for Stirling today. In speaking on this bill, he has accused Labor of a breach of faith and of being deceitful in not analysing the impact of this bill and not being upfront about its effects. There is no greater height of hypocrisy than that statement made by the member for Stirling when we reflect on the fact that the Howard government went to the election in 2004 with no mention of Work Choices; nor did they provide any information at all to the community about all of the legislation that they tried to push through this parliament prior to 2004 and its effects. They just waited and, upon getting the balance of power in both the House and the Senate, the Howard government took no time at all in setting about destroying 100 years of positive industrial relations laws—laws that had developed over the past century from the struggles of hundreds of thousands of workers across Australia who fought, not just in the workplace but in the courtrooms, to establish fair and balanced rights and working conditions.

When it came to the previous government there was not a single thought given to those struggles and to the legitimate consideration given through lengthy test cases and legal arguments over many years to establish the laws and legal authorities that evolved. This was a government so obsessed with their ideology and their absolute dislike of unions—which, ironically, never extended to employer unions—that they would do anything to achieve this aim. It appears that, in the eyes of the opposition, it is okay to be a member of an employer union but not of an employee union.

This was a government that treated the Australian people with contempt. It ran ads during the election campaign—and we have heard it again today—trying to portray union officials as people that should be feared, when in fact what workers want and should have a right to is simple equality. If an employer is able to have their employer union official, a consultant, a solicitor or a barrister representing their business at the workplace during a meeting with an employee, why shouldn’t that employee equally have the right to have their union official representing them?

The Howard government and the members now in the opposition treated the Australian people like fools during the election in 2007. The then member for Petrie even attempted to slur my name with comments and letters reminding people that I am one of ‘those union officials’ and consequently I should be feared. The Australian people saw through this facade for what it was: a desperate attempt to hold onto government so that they could not only hold on to their extreme industrial relations laws through Work Choices but have the opportunity to take them much further. We heard in 2006 that the person who wanted to be Prime Minister but was never quite up to the task of trying to take the job, the member for Higgins, wanted to take the unfair dismissal laws much further. If it was not offensive enough to have the majority of workers across the country excluded from any independent recourse from unfair dismissal, the member for Higgins, in speaking on the limit of 100 or fewer employees, stated that this was no magic number and that in future he would like to see all businesses excluded.

The Australian public should not assume that because John Howard is gone—and the member for Higgins should be—the remaining opposition are now fair work supporters. This is a party that, although devoid of policy and sincerity, is steeped in an underlying belief that workers should have to fend for themselves in dealing with their employer and negotiating their wages and conditions. Even before Work Choices, when AWAs were required to meet a no disadvantage test which was enforced by the Office of the Employment Advocate, that office failed on many occasions to ensure the test was met. As a consequence of the introduction of Work Choices, many workers had AWAs thrust upon them with no safety net in place at all. These agreements were able to override all of the workers’ existing conditions of employment.

This House has heard many examples from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, over the past 12 months about the significant disadvantage that workers have suffered as a consequence of inferior AWAs lawfully allowed under those extreme laws. We had unfair dismissal rights restricted so much that the majority of businesses across the country could dismiss workers without reason. We had a bargaining system where no assistance could be sought from an independent body to resolve issues unless the employer and employee agreed—which, not surprisingly, many employers did not.

This new Fair Work Bill stands in stark contrast to the Work Choices legislation and the laws that came before it. This is not just a bill to deliver fair and just industrial relations laws in Australia; it is a bill for the future. It delivers fair rights and protections at the same time as placing reasonable obligations on employers, workers and unions. This bill will assist in increasing productivity growth through job security and ensuring that workers are valued for the work that they do. This bill also provides rights for employers and the flexibility needed for a strong, robust economy where businesses are required to be competitive not just nationally but globally.

For too long, Australia has had industrial relations laws federally that undermine the intent of Australia’s forefathers: a strong and fair democratic system and that our industrial relations laws be a positive piece of legislation that provides positive rights and obligations on parties. Despite the complexities of the Work Choices laws, there is one simple example of how far our country had strayed from our ideal of a fair and just society. In 1916 Queensland saw its first unfair dismissal case. The gentleman seeking review was a sewage transport worker with Maryborough City Council. Through his union at the time he sought to have his dismissal reviewed by the then Fair Treatment Tribunal. His case was upheld. In 2006, under Work Choices, a worker in the same position, along with many other workers across the country, would not have had such a right. This means that 90 years on from the first case in Queensland, workers in Australia had less rights than in 1916. Australia should be ashamed of this fact. Australians across this country understood this in 2007 and wanted to correct this blight on our reputation and the attack on their basic rights. That a government would put its ideology before basic rights in the workplace is a sad indictment on the Howard government. The legacy that it left was not one to be proud of, despite the member for Stirling’s comments today.

Even before Work Choices was introduced, the previous government sought to systematically undermine the rights of workers in this country through the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and its ongoing attempts on no less than 12 occasions over the past decade to continually erode any element of fairness. It is important that people across Australia were informed of what their government was doing to them and the long-term affects those decisions would have, not just on them, but also on their children and their grandchildren. That is why the Your Rights at Work campaign was such an important initiative. I would like to acknowledge and thank the union movement for their effort to lift the awareness of the effects of Work Choices on Australian workers and to see these laws removed from the Australian landscape forever. I know that this campaign was supported not just by unions but also by the community as a whole, by businesses, small and large, and by many other organisations across Australia.

Many employers spoke to me about the fact that they believed Work Choices had gone too far. On 24 November 2007, the Australian people ensured that the Howard government and all of its members and candidates who supported Work Choices got the message loud and clear, although I do query, having listened to the member for Stirling this morning, whether they heard that message at all. Once again, we hear the member for Stirling standing here today in this chamber saying that they are forced to agree to the Fair Work Bill by the government. No acknowledgement that it was the Australian people who came out and said, ‘We do not want these laws.’ No acknowledgement that workers across this country did not want these laws. Not one reference to Australian workers in the speech by the member for Stirling or an acknowledgement that these workers were not satisfied with the extreme industrial relations laws of the Howard government.

The reason this bill is right for workers, businesses and the economy as a whole is spelt out in its terms. The principle objects of the bill require the legislation to be applied in a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations that promote national economic prosperity and social inclusion for all Australians. The bill guarantees a safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions for Australian workers that can no longer be undermined by the making of statutory individual employment agreements of any kind. The bill ensures freedom of association and recognises that employees have the right to be represented at work by a union. These objectives will be applied by a new, independent body established to enforce the positive rights and obligations that are prescribed therein in a fair and just manner. The new body will be known as Fair Work Australia.

This bill will provide the right for an independent body to review a decision of an employer to terminate an employee’s employment where that employee genuinely believes that the dismissal has been harsh and unreasonable. Of course, under this bill, employers are also given adequate time to ensure that any new employee is suited to the work required and to the business through a probationary period of 12 months for small business and six months for all other businesses. This will give employers a reasonable period of time to train and assess a person’s performance and ability to perform the work before any right to unfair dismissal can arise.

On too many occasions since the introduction of Work Choices did I have to hear direct accounts by individuals of their unfair dismissals, only to feel their frustration and despair knowing that these people have no protections from that action. I remember a solicitor phoning me in mid-2006 requesting advice, as I was the senior industrial advocate of a union at the time. This particular solicitor was not familiar with this area of law. This solicitor told me about his client who had just been dismissed after 16 years of employment. This employee had never been questioned or disciplined about conduct or performance. The only change was that a new supervisor had recently taken over and did not seem to take a liking to the long-term employee. The solicitor asked me what action was available to the employee. After clarifying that the employer was covered by Work Choices and the size of the workforce was approximately 60 employees, I advised the solicitor his client had no rights. This solicitor then proceeded to run a logical argument that the employee had been given no reasons for the dismissal and, upon the employee asking why he had been dismissed, was simply told by the employer they did not have to give a reason. As such, no procedural fairness was provided to this employee at all. I once again told the solicitor his client had no rights. This solicitor was absolutely amazed that this was in fact the current law. This disbelief was unfortunately felt by many employees dismissed without reason.

This bill, the Fair Work Bill, will ensure that the right to fair treatment in relation to the termination of employment will be protected at law. The process has also been improved, with both parties having access to a simple, streamlined, unfair dismissal claim process through Fair Work Australia. In addition, this bill provides for a fair and reasonable safety net of wages and employment conditions that cannot be stripped away. The safety net will be outlined in the National Employment Standards and through modern awards. The Australian public wanted to ensure that any new system had at its core basic wages and conditions that could not, under any circumstances, be reduced. Julia Gillard and the Rudd Labor government have delivered on this promise. All future enterprise agreements must be negotiated with the explicit requirement that the terms and conditions leave the employee better off overall than they would have been compared to their respective awards. The importance of ensuring such a test exists was never understood by the Howard government, and they stripped away that protection. Even in the dying days of the Howard government, when they sought to throw together a safety net test, they never truly intended to provide protection to retain the important rights of workers. It was simply a smokescreen to try and bluff the Australian public into thinking that they actually now cared. Of course, we all know that that was not the case.

This Fair Work Bill will deliver where the Howard government stripped away. The new bargaining system will ensure that businesses and workers can have the flexibility needed to keep competitive and deal with the pressures on working families. It will ensure that assistance can be given when it is needed, without unnecessarily interfering with the bargaining process or the rights of parties to negotiate their own terms of the agreement. Under the general protections prescribed in the bill, workers will have the right not only to belong to a union but to be represented. Workers will be able to meet to discuss workplace issues with their union official without their employer intimidating them.

I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, and all of the ministerial staff and departmental officers who worked tirelessly to see this bill introduced 12 months on from the Rudd government coming into office. Although it has been difficult for workers to wait for the new laws to be introduced and for Work Choices to finally be condemned to the dustbin, it was extremely important that the government got this right—that is, that this bill is workable and reasonable and that it will provide a strong industrial relations system for the nation into the future. This bill does that and more. I am proud to be an elected member of this parliament and to be part of the Rudd Labor government, which is delivering on its promises to the Australian people. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context