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

It is my pleasure to be speaking in this cognate debate in support of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 and the Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009. These two bills in conjunction with the Fair Work Act are the final stages of the commitment made by the Rudd Labor government to the general community across Australia that we will finally see the end of Work Choices.

The transitional bill will, once and for all, repeal the Workplace Relations Act 1996 leaving only schedule 1 that deals with registered organisations and schedule 10 that deals with transitionally registered associations, which will then become the new renamed Fair Work Registered Organisations Act 2009. This is truly a great day. This is the day that we see the end of Work Choices and the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This bill also provides for the application of the 10 National Employment Standards and minimum wages to all national system employees from 1 January 2010 including those covered by instruments made before the commencement of the new system. It also ensures that an employee’s take-home pay is not reduced as a result of any transition to a modern award from 1 January 2010.

The bill also sets out rules in relation to the treatment of existing industrial instruments in the new system and includes arrangements to enable bargaining under the new system to commence in an orderly way. It also deals with the transfer of assets and functions and proceedings from the Workplace Relations Act institutions to Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Ombudsman.

The Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009 also marks the next step in the creation of the national workplace relations system for the private sector, which is a key commitment of this government. The bill will amend the Fair Work Act to enable states to refer matters to the Commonwealth with a view to establishing a uniform national workplace relations system for the private sector.

These two bills, in conjunction with the Fair Work Act, will deliver where Work Choices and the Howard government failed. What this legislation will do overall is deliver a clear, easy-to-read piece of legislation that delivers significant national reform, which was a commitment of Rudd and Labor leading into the 2007 election. It provides clarity and it provides transition from the absolute mess that was left behind as a consequence of Work Choices. Where the Howard government failed and where Work Choices failed is that they made promises to deliver to the business community a simple, unregulated labour market. In fact it just created a complex labyrinth of laws that went from a single piece of legislation to two significant volumes that even the most experienced lawyer, or consultant or industrial relations expert in this field had trouble getting their head around. In its place we will get a simple-to-read piece of legislation that sets out basic conditions and entitlements at the same time as ensuring flexibility in the workplace to build on productivity.

Some of the key features of the new workplace relations system are a fair and comprehensive safety net of minimum employment conditions, a system that has at its heart bargaining in good faith at the enterprise level, protections from unfair dismissal for employees, protection for the low-paid, a balance between work and family life, and the right to be represented in the workplace.

I have to congratulate the member for Fadden for being able to stand there with a straight face and say that the opposition are about fairness, real fairness for workers. It is unbelievable that anyone on the opposition side can actually stand there and say that they are about fairness for workers. This is the party that brought us AWAs. This is the party that stripped away basic wages and conditions and fair protections of workers. We heard from the member for Werriwa an example of a constituent coming and telling him that he was sacked and the reason given by his employer was that he could. Prior to Work Choices and even under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which was introduced by the Howard government, at the very least the employer had to give reasons for dismissal. But what became the norm under Work Choices was for employers to simply say: ‘I could. I sacked you because I could.’ That is what those laws allowed. So any proposal that the opposition are going to put up amendments because they want to create real fairness is an absolute farce and they cannot be trusted.

We have seen a new tactic in this chamber in the last few days. I think it has finally dawned on the opposition that if they just keep opposing all of the bills that the government puts up it will come back to bite them at some point. We saw many examples of that last week where we had members on the other side out in their electorates doing the thumbs-up and supporting government initiatives but then opposing these proposals outright in this House. So they have moved slightly. Their new strategy is: ‘We will not oppose it. We will just put up amendments.’ But the reality is that they cannot bring themselves to let go of Work Choices. That is what it is really about.

I remember a story from during the campaign about a particular group of workers in a private hospital who were pharmacists. They had been approached by their employer to have AWAs, and those AWAs not only reduced penalties but required them to work additional hours for no extra pay. These particular workers were quite surprised. They were professionals and they were quite conservative in their voting habits and they actually said: ‘We support the Howard government. We supported these laws because we never thought they were meant to apply to us. We thought they were meant for the blue-collar workers. We thought that they were meant for manufacturers. We never thought AWAs would affect us because we are professionals.’ It just shows you that Work Choices did not discriminate at one level; it made sure that it disadvantaged every worker at every level. That is what this government is absolutely committed to stamping out.

We have heard about jobs. Again, what we have on the other side is a party who, both when in government and now in opposition, are absolutely committed to squandering opportunity. Their idea of tackling an economic crisis—they do not say those words very often; they do not want to acknowledge that there is a global economic crisis going on because that would not be convenient for their political arguments out in the community—is: ‘Let’s tighten our belt and let’s sit and wait,’ as unemployment goes up.

The Rudd Labor government is about actually supporting jobs and nation building for the future. We are about actually investing in infrastructure—public investment in infrastructure where the private sector is pulling back. This will support jobs. Their idea about supporting jobs at the workplace was about stripping away protections and stripping away wages and conditions. What most effective businesses realise is that the way to have a productive workforce and to increase productivity is actually to value your workforce—to work together with your workforce not just to keep the business afloat but to see the business grow.

There is a stark contrast between those on the other side of this chamber and the government members, who are absolutely committed to the investment that this government is making in supporting jobs locally right now and ensuring that we are building and investing in our infrastructure for the future. Those on the other side can try to slip into as many photographs as they want in local communities but the reality is that they are not committed to infrastructure. They were not committed to investing in infrastructure in the 12 years that they were in government and they continue to hold the same view that there is no benefit for a federal government to invest in infrastructure. That view will only condemn our children and our grandchildren to higher unemployment in the future. But this government is committed to seeing that investment occur in our schools.

For anyone who is cynical about this creating local jobs, Bald Hills State School, which is one of the schools in my electorate, said to me recently, ‘Yvette, this is fantastic; it is building halls and our library, and our contractor is employing subcontractors to build our new hall’—a hall they never imagined they would have. The subcontractors are tradespeople who are also parents of children at the school, so that they have parents building the hall for their children. There is no greater investment in education for our young people than investing in quality facilities within the schools so that those kids can learn.

You have before you legislation that has been developed not just for the prosperous economic times but also for the tough economic times. We heard the member for Werriwa talking about some arguments made on the other side that we should not proceed with any changes to the workplace laws because there is an economic crisis going on. But these laws have been developed to deal with all of the economic times that face us, both good and bad.

The Fair Work Act 2009, along with the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill and the Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill, which are before us today, create a modern industrial relations system for the long term and for the future, leaving behind a very dark past that the Howard government brought upon our businesses and our workers. This is fair and balanced legislation. It is long overdue. It is what the Australian community asked for, insisted on and voted on in 2007. These two bills, in conjunction with the Fair Work Act, deliver on that commitment by the Rudd Labor government. I commend the bills to this House.

See this speech in context