Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009, which was introduced into the House on 19 March, and also the Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009, which was introduced on 27 May. I note that it would be appreciated if coalition members respected the agreements made between both sides of the chamber when we try to limit speaking times so that people can get their full opportunity to speak in this House and that as best as possible we can deal with all the work that needs to be done.

The bills that are being debated today will fully implement the government’s election promises. They will fulfil our commitment to the Australian people on one of the key platforms and planks that we were elected on in relation to workers and fair work and a whole range of reforms that needed to take place after the disastrous Work Choices legislation, the workplace relations legislation that was introduced by the former government. It is very pleasing to again have the opportunity to speak on bills in relation to workers’ rights.

I took note of a number of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Ryan, and other speakers as well. This is not an attack on them, but the debate still centres around old debates and old arguments. It still centres on things that are not at the core of what working Australians—ordinary people; families—are concerned about. Those opposite are still caught up in some pre-war concepts of us versus them and of old class battles, with it being the unions versus everybody else. Somehow, unions are a third entity that exists in cyberspace, perhaps. Unions are the workers; unions are the voices of the workers, just as in every other part of society, people have a representative to speak on their behalf. We as members of parliament represent our constituents. All 90,000 cannot be in here, so I am elected here to speak on their behalf, as is the member for Ryan elected to speak on behalf of his constituents. But I have to say that I am not as arrogant as the member for Ryan or some others on the other side to believe that all those whom I speak on behalf of share my view.

I actually believe that our views can differ and that you can still represent your community properly, adequately and respectfully, but do not come in here pretending and arrogantly saying that all of your constituents are of that view and that all businesses have confirmed that they somehow oppose this, have a different view to us or somehow agree with the previous speaker’s views. I just find that a ludicrous proposition. I also find it at the shallow end of the pool in terms of the contribution to debates that we get on these matters by members of the Liberal and National parties, whose only clear agenda in these debates is about how you keep tipping the balance of power in one only direction. It is never about trying to rectify power imbalances in society, communities and workplaces; it is never about trying to have a fair workplace where you can try to find some sort of equilibrium, which is very hard to do. It should be about where you could find some sort of balance for the rights of working people—those who actually create the wealth. This is another myth that is purported by the other side: it is only the people who invest in and create a business who have all the rights—because they have risk on the table, they have all the rights; because it is their capital, they have all the rights.

I am a big supporter of business—small, medium and large. I think they do a fantastic job in this economy. I am a friend of business, but I am also a friend of workers, the people who make those businesses a success, the people who toil day in and day out and do it with great courage. They toil with their labour and risk their labour and time; they risk the possibility that if something goes wrong in the business they will lose their employment and perhaps their home and investments. It is a shared risk. It is a shared investment by the people who put capital on the table with the people who toil with their labour. That is the balance, and that is what the other side should be talking about: how do we properly address in this place the requirements to balance the needs of working people and families—people who need to trade their labour for a fair day’s work and a fair day’s pay? How do we get their rights balanced with the obvious rights that employers have in terms of trying to manage their business and get on with growing their business? What really disturbs and frustrates me is the attitude of the other side, that it only goes in one direction and that the only people who should have a voice—the voice of collectivism, the voice of a union—are employer association groups, unions or whatever you want to call them. In their mind, the only collective voice that should be heard is that of some Australian business group or other organisation.

We talk about consultation in terms of delivering these bills. The greatest of efforts have been put forward in consulting with the wider community and all stakeholders—unions and the people they represent, workers, their families, employers, employees, union groups, associations, business groups. We understand that they all have a role and a stake, either through their representative voice, individually or collectively—regardless of how they arrange their own affairs. When you can at least get to that place, then you can understand who should be at the table and what you should be delivering for the national interest, business and workers—the people who actually create that wealth.

I am afraid that, as always in these debates, we hear the tired old arguments over union influence. Let me just say to the other side, the former government who were tossed out on their ear because of their assault on ordinary working Australians: I suggest that big business have a massive influence on their decisions. I suggest that big business, in fact, have the coalition’s ear and that they are at the beck and call—captive—of big business. I do not disagree that we should all listen to big business, heed their views and include them in consultation, but I equally believe that workers should be at the same table and so should their representatives through the union movement.

I also note that, in these difficult economic times, some on the other side will say: ‘Now is not the time. It’s just too difficult.’ That is what they will tell you. If you actually listen to the other side, it is never the time; there is never a good time. When the economy is running away and markets are in a bull run they say: ‘Now is not the time. We’re too busy making money and growing our business, and we need to actually relax the rules and deregulate further in order to continue to grow.’ When times are tough they say: ‘Now is not the time because we must save the business. We must do this and that. We must walk down that path.’ But they never stop for a minute to think about the shared pain and, whether it is in good times or bad times, who should bear the cost. In my view it should be an equal balance of bearing the cost, between the taxpayer, business and workers. Everybody should have an equal part of not only the risk but sharing the burden. But if you listen to the Liberal and National parties, their dyed-in-the wool, heart-of-hearts ideology is that there should only ever be one group of people who actually pays the cost, and that is workers—to be discarded, gotten rid of and sacked, or rearranged in restructuring businesses. There is one underlying factor and theory: the worker should always bear the cost. I find that abhorrent. In the contributions that we have seen from members on the other side, that is exactly what we are being told.

We are introducing a new system, a fairer system with fairer laws that are about balancing the needs of employees, their representatives, unions and employers. We want to ensure that all employees and employers have a fair stake in their own lives and workplaces. It is about fairness in terms of rights and responsibilities. It is the Australian way. This is the way that we do things here in Australia to provide the best outcomes. We want fair dismissal systems for small business, we want to make sure that workers have confidence in the systems we put in place and that there is a certainty about their employment arrangements. We want clear minimum wages. We want to make sure that we assist low-paid and vulnerable workers. Why should they be at the bottom of the heap and not have any protection? Why should they be at the beck and call, the whim, of unscrupulous employers who would just use and abuse them and then discard them when they are no longer needed or when they find can someone who will do the same work cheaper. That is not the Australian way. That is not a fair go. There need to be standards. That is the work that we ought to be doing in here, alongside the representatives of workers and unions. We need to make sure that employees and employers all have freedom of association in the workplace and that employees can bargain collectively and belong to a union without the fear that just by belonging to one they will be treated differently at work.

We know how that works in some workplaces. You are discouraged from belonging to a union. It may be against the law but people are discouraged from joining a union because of the pressure on them in their workplaces. This is not how it should be in Australia and these laws will ensure that those rights exist and enshrine them in legislation. This new government workplace relations system will provide a strong safety net, and in fact in these uncertain times it will provide certainty and will make sure that everyone understands their place and how they can be protected to best ride out the economic times that we face.

In conclusion, in fulfilling our commitments to the electorate at the last election we are getting rid of some of the most extreme workplace laws that this country has ever seen, laws that were not asked for by anybody—or perhaps by just a few extreme elements of big business. They were certainly not asked for by ordinary Australians and were clearly rejected by them at the last election. I commend the bills to the House.

See this speech in context