Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with an immense amount of pride that I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Bill 2008. I say that because in all the time that I have belonged to the Australian Labor Party—and I joined on 11 November 1975—I have never been more proud of my party than I am today. This has been an extraordinary first year in government for the Labor Party. From the first-ever welcome to country that was extended to the parliamentarians here and the apology on the opening day of parliament through to the introduction of this bill, this Labor government has set about delivering on the commitments it made during the election campaign. It has been establishing the future of this country—a fair and equitable future for everybody—through, in particular, the education revolution and something that we had not anticipated at the time of the election but that has taken a lot of our time: combating the global financial crisis.

There have been many speeches preceding mine on this bill and, if I may be so bold as to introduce a little bit of modern culture, I will quote from the Carole King song So Far Away and say:

One more song about movin’ along the highway,

Can’t say much of anything that’s new …

So it is with this speech; there is not a lot to be said. Members have canvassed the content of this bill very well. I would refer readers of my speech who want to find a really good explanation of this bill to the speech by the member for Charlton, Mr Combet, who has more than a little interest in the delivery of this legislation by the government.

This bill is the Australian working person’s emancipation from the latter-day serfdom that was imposed upon them by the coalition’s Work Choices legislation. We know that in feudal society serfs had a particular and specific place, and the legislation that this bill abolishes sought to do that with working Australians. This has been a long time in the making, and I have been particularly scornful over the years of the diminution of the relationship between working people and their employers. It started out that companies, in their dealings with the staff, did so through a department called the staff department, which then disintegrated into something impersonal called the personnel department and then something that I believe is quite inhumane called human resources. I think that members opposite, many large employers and, unfortunately, some small employers do not understand today that the job that they provide for a working person is that person’s vehicle for their aspirations for a better life for themselves and for their families. That job provides for them not only their food and shelter but their education: the future of a whole range of people whom this country needs to have properly and beneficially developed if it is to meet future challenges well.

There is absolutely no doubt, it is very clear, that the Labor government has a mandate for this legislation, despite what members opposite might say during their presentations on this bill. No lesser authority than the member for North Sydney, Mr Hockey, who, as the outgoing Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, on 28 November 2007 was quoted in one of our august journals as having said:

Labor has an undeniable, overwhelming mandate to abolish Work Choices.

Of course, the member for North Sydney is not the only member opposite to have expressed similar sentiments. For example, I believe just yesterday that in the course of a personal explanation the member for Fisher, in correcting what he says was an erroneous report in a newspaper, was able to inform the House that in his view Labor’s mandate to abolish Work Choices should be respected. So we have an overwhelming mandate, in the view of the member for North Sydney, that should be respected, in the view of the member for Fisher, who is my neighbour in Queensland. Also, earlier in this debate the member for Mayo made a few comments. The member for Mayo’s DNA was all over the Work Choices legislation in a previous capacity as an adviser to the former Prime Minister. He had this to say:

… at least on this matter they put out a detailed policy, which is largely reflected in the bill before the House.

…            …            …

Labor is entitled to move the bill to ensure its commitments are met.

In contrast, of course, the member for Bendigo, in his contribution, and many others pointed out the fact that the introduction of the Work Choices legislation into this parliament happened without any mandate having been received.

The introduction of this bill gives cause to some lines from another popular song of the sixties: Little Red Rooster, written by Willie Dixon:

… the dogs begin to bark,

And the hounds,

They begin to howl …

That is what is happening from the members opposite, and I want the people of Australia to read the contributions made by the members oppositie and to understand that a return to a coalition in this country will of necessity bring a return to the Work Choices legislation. They are Work Choices true believers. They are industrial fairness deniers. For example, if we were to look at the contribution made by the member for Kalgoorlie—now remember what the member for North Sydney and the member for Fisher said about the mandate—we would see that he describes this mandate as ‘perceived’ or ‘supposed’. The member for Kalgoorlie is a denier that there is a mandate to do anything all.

The member for Cowan indicated in his contribution to this legislation—and it was something that was said by many members, so I guess it is a little bit unfair to pick him out—that members opposite reserve the right to make amendments to the bill before the House. They reserve the right—I have never heard anything more ludicrous. They spent a whole term in government taking rights away from working Australians and they reserve the right for themselves to make amendments to the legislation that restores those rights to people. That is absolutely ludicrous, and they stand condemned for thinking that right is there for them.

Of course, the ministerial architect of Work Choices was the member for Menzies. He had to make a contribution, and that contribution was particularly illuminating. The member for Menzies initially chose to criticise organisations representing businesses in this country when he said:

Many small and medium businesses will come to see that they have been poorly served by those who lead their organisations.

And what had those who led their organisations done to deserve that from the member for Menzies? They said, ‘This is reasonable legislation and it should be passed.’ So said business organisations in this country. The member for Menzies went on to say:

Those who continue to believe in the individual and the national benefits of economic freedom will have to rejoin the struggle.

Which struggle might that be? The struggle to reintroduce Work Choices, I suggest, is what the member for Menzies is talking about. Being mindful of the time, I will just say that in November 2007 the people decided, and they decided that the member for Menzies was not the Messiah; he was just a very naughty boy.

Debate (on motion by Ms Roxon) adjourned.

See this speech in context