Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, I spent some of my early life in meatworks. Though you went down the employer line, I went down the union line and have a different perspective from you. I was very pleased to be able to inspect books and find underpayment of wages, even for non-union members, and rectify those problems. The Fair Work Bill 2008 delivers on the government’s commitment during the last election campaign to get rid of the previous government’s unfair Work Choices laws and will completely replace the current Workplace Relations Act. At the last election Australians spoke loudly and gave this government a clear mandate to change the Work Choices laws imposed upon them by the previous Howard government. As I said at the time, they were laws which really meant: sign or go. Either you signed an AWA that the boss produced and gave to you or you left. You did one of the two. There was no choice; the words naming that legislation were the wrong words.

The people of Australia spoke clearly in support of our policy Forward with Fairness, and this bill today delivers on that promise to the Australian people. It is about bringing back fairness into the workplace. We are renowned across the world for giving people a fair go, and this piece of legislation will enshrine that in a new workplace relations system. It will introduce a simpler scheme that has balance and is fair to both employers and employees. This piece of legislation will pave the way for certainty in Australian workplaces and remove the confusion for both employees and employers that was created by Work Choices, which really took us back to the master-servant situation. Sign or go was what people got with many AWAs. This bill looks to the future of employment in Australia and plans for that future with a simpler, fair and balanced workplace relations system—one that protects the most vulnerable workers and encourages enterprise bargaining to drive productivity. We know from studies in the world that enterprise bargaining can drive productivity much better than Australian workplace agreements could ever do.

The present industrial relations system is a minefield for both employers and employees. Employees can be taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who use the current legislation to create legal but unfair employment arrangements. Employers will also benefit from clearer and more concise legislation that is easily understood. The Fair Work Bill 2008 will allow both employers and employees to get on with business knowing that they are being fairly treated. Small businesses in my part of the world have said to me that they really wanted to know what their responsibilities were so that they could meet them. They did not want to be caught up in not meeting obligations.

The Howard government got caught up with those people who helped design the Work Choices legislation, who really hated trade unions and, to some degree I think, had a really strong feeling that they wanted to dominate working people. The Howard government and the Howard ministry got caught up in that. I am sure that some of them believed in that same philosophy. From listening to some of the speeches on this bill one would feel that there is a divide in Australia between labour and capital. There are two sides in this parliament, and that has been reflected in this debate. I am sure that that will be analysed and written about, and I am sure our side of the House will highlight those points at the next election in 2010.

I turn now to the issue of unfair dismissals. The Senate majority allowed the Howard government to bring those laws into place. And the only reason they made the law books of Australia was that they went too far. It was a fine example of too much control. The unfair dismissal laws allow people to be sacked without the right to appeal. The inability to seek redress in any reasonable way without going to courts and briefing lawyers et cetera was a very unfair process.

I just want to touch again on the issue of allowing unions to look at wages records if they believe that there is underpayment of wages in a workplace. If there is a proper process to make sure that the representatives of those unions are people who meet a standard—which I understand will be set—and if they undertake to keep confidentiality, as I have done in the past, then why would you be totally opposed to that, unless you wanted to do something dishonest? If there is nothing to hide, why not have the books scrutinised? I would not have thought that there was a reason to not have that occur.

I sat through some of the debate last night, sitting where you are sitting, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, and the point was raised about having a job. It was said that this bill will create unemployment and that the important point is having a job. This side of the House believes in having a job but a job that gives you the dignity that you deserve, a safe workplace and enough return to have a life for yourself and your family within a community, not like years ago when you might have had to get a divvy out of the poor box at the parish because your wages never reached the necessary level. That is some of the history that our side of the House remembers and has read about. That was a part of our history. So having a job is a very poor argument. Having a job that pays $9 an hour may not allow you to live with dignity or live fairly in an Australian situation. There is a little bit more to it than just having a job. The Fair Work Bill sets up a strong safety net, with 10 legislated National Employment Standards for all employees. These are standards that cannot be taken away and will ensure that all employees have the basic safety net.

Another other point I would like to make is on something that happened with Work Choices. You could still belong to a union—it was not going to stop anyone from belonging to a union—but the employer did not have to recognise the union when it came to negotiating. If you are a member of a union, you are entitled to have that union come to the table and negotiate on your behalf, and that will be enshrined in this legislation, as will bargaining in good faith, with no time wasting by either side. What occurred under Work Choices was that people would turn up, sit down and negotiate and then, two months later, nothing would have been achieved. You would go back again and again and there was no fair bargaining in good faith. It was time wasting in a deliberate way. Employees have a right to be represented by their union at the negotiating table. I certainly believe that this bill takes Australia back to world’s best practice. It takes us forward in a modern way. It uses modern processes of bargaining which will increase our productivity and move us forward to where we are in the world today. I support the bill.

See this speech in context