Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Millions of Australians have waited for this day, after a decade of punishment and difficulty foisted upon them by the former Howard government and their industrial relations laws. It has been a long time coming for far too many Australians. It is important in this debate on the Fair Work Bill 2008 to recount the real-life situations that millions of Australian workers confronted over the last decade under the industrial laws of Peter Reith, John Howard and the member for North Sydney, when he became the minister responsible for industrial relations laws. I would like to recount a couple of incidents relating to people in my electorate who came to me over the course of the last couple of years. These examples are by no means exhaustive but they are illustrative of the problem.

A well-off senior executive in a finance corporation came to me when I had a mobile office in my electorate. He was not the sort of person that I would have thought would be inclined to support the Labor Party. After explaining where he worked and what he did, he explained to me that he was voting Labor because he had had enough of John Howard and the opposition’s extreme industrial relations laws. I wondered how they affected him. As we spoke he referred to the experience of his wife. His wife was a professional with a good job. She worked well and was highly regarded by her workmates. She fell pregnant, took leave and had a child. Her employer decided that they did not want to extend maternity leave to her, so they made the position redundant under the then provisions for retrenchment for operational reasons. A few weeks later they employed someone to take her place. There was no redundancy. This was a sham constructed simply to remove an employee because that employer had no desire to provide that worker with basic entitlements. It was enough for that family to say, ‘We’ve had enough.’

Another worker came along at an awards night—a defence medals ceremony that members of parliament on both sides will be familiar with. As this gentleman came in, he pulled me aside and started tearing strips off me and asking me what I was doing about the terrible industrial relations laws—Work Choices. I said: ‘Actually, I’m doing what I can to try to stop them. We are trying to get rid of them.’ After he had chewed my ear for a while, the ceremony went on. When it concluded he came up to me and apologised. He said: ‘I really shouldn’t have had a go at you on the way in. I am actually a naval officer. I am worried about my son. He is starting a trade and I know how he is being treated.’ These are real-life people who the Liberal Party ignored. They had an absolute blind spot, because whenever these cases were raised, whether in public or private, their standard response was that it was union propaganda and they would not listen to a word of it.

It was not just the workers of Australia who found these laws repugnant—or the parents or grandparents, many of whom, by the way, spent a lifetime fighting for conditions for their children only to see them stripped away by Peter Reith, John Howard and those presently sitting opposite. Employers also came up to me. We have all been out there as members of parliament with petitions on stalls. Usually you have to harass people to get them to come along and sign their name. I stood there with the petition on Your Rights at Work and there were queues of people lined up wanting to sign the petition. One of the people who signed, a lady at Ashgrove, made a comment about the impact it was having on workers. As she walked away she said: ‘I’m an employer; I employ people. I do not want to be forced to subject my workers to the lowest common denominator. I respect my workers and I want to reward them. These laws are making it harder for me to do that.’ I thank her.

I remember another employer who employed over 100 people and who invited me to talk to a gathering. They had an employer sponsored staff barbecue for the member for Oxley and me. We were invited to come along and say a few words. They had the same concerns. As a decent company employing around 100 to 150 people, they knew that under the Howard laws, the Liberal Party’s laws, they were being forced into the lowest common denominator, and they wanted none of it. They understood the importance of a dedicated, committed workforce—something those opposite never comprehended in the entire period they were in office.

The bill that we have before us today is an important part of setting the history right and setting the values of decent Australians back on the centre stage of industrial relations laws in this land. It contains important laws which all of us on this side are committed to. I would like to say that some of those on the other side share some of that commitment, but they do not. We confront Liberal and National parties that are still trying to come to grips with the reality that they lost an election. They struggle to comprehend that they are in opposition. They struggle to comprehend that the people of Australia in particular would have none of their industrial relations laws, their Work Choices laws. Let us just remember that name: Work Choices. It became so unpopular in this land that the government of the day and ministers of the day, who now sit opposite in opposition, instructed the public sector not to use the words ‘Work Choices’. After spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to sell it to the public, when the public knew that they had been sold a pup, those opposite, many of whom now sit on the front bench and want to be in government again, instructed their department officials not to use the term ‘Work Choices’. I think it would suit the purposes of the House if my speech was interrupted to enable a motion to be put.

Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.

See this speech in context