Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always interesting to listen to architects and apostles of Work Choices talk about these types of issues, somehow waxing lyrical about being concerned for employees. I will tell you what was complex, Madam Deputy Speaker: it was the Work Choices standard, running to 149 pages of complexity with only five substandard minimum conditions. The previous speaker was one of the architects, an apostle. He is a one of the devotees of Work Choices.

In this debate I have heard a couple of speakers already from those opposite. They do not mention Work Choices because it is the love that bears no name and they will not mention it. It is like Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter series—you cannot bear to mention the actual name. That is the reality. They will not mention it but they are over there today being concerned about workers in restaurants and workers in the aged-care industry.

I will tell you what they should have done in the aged-care industry in relation to this particular matter. We have got the Australian Nursing Federation campaigning—correctly, because they do care—about the fact that wages in the aged-care sector are $300 a week on average lower than in the public sector. They, along with the aged-care industry, are campaigning in relation to this matter. What did those opposite do in their 12 years of tenure on this side of the House? Almost nothing for the aged-care sector except burden it with Stalinist regulation and then reduce, effectively, the profitability of the aged-care sector so that workers in the sector do not get paid the kind of wages they deserve. It is the same thing with women who are cleaners and those working in restaurants and cafes. What did they do for them? What is the reality of Work Choices? The reality of Work Choices was the fact that their wages were much lower. So do not come into this place and bleed and bleat and claim that somehow you are supporting Australian workers after you foisted Work Choices upon them.

The legislation that is before the House is important legislation because it effectively carries on from what we did when we first introduced the legislation to get rid of Work Choices. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Act of 2008 was passed. In a moment of reality those opposite actually supported it and it commenced on 20 March 2008. That allowed the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to commence the important national reform of award modernisation.

We have consulted widely with employers and employees alike. To give you an illustration, when it comes to our National Employment Standards—which are of course the subject of two pieces of legislation before the House today—there were 129 submissions received from a wide range of stakeholders before the standards were released in February 2008. They were developed after extensive consultation and consideration of submissions. We have listened to stakeholders in relation to this matter.

I heard the shadow minister talking about the fact that there were going to be jobs lost throughout various industries. But not a shred of evidence was produced. There was no business case and no cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, it was the same kind of rhetoric we heard when Work Choices was brought in—the vices and virtues of Work Choices, that Orwellian piece of legislation that they brought in, with the great deal of complexity that they foisted upon small business. Nothing was produced then about how important that was to industrial relations harmony, the economy and economic prosperity. It is the same thing from the shadow minister today. Again he goes on and gives an example of a couple of pharmacies—no names—and then extrapolates that and says it is going to have a massive impact not just in his own state but across the whole country. Not a shred of evidence was produced.

Then we have the alarmist rhetoric from those opposite. If they were fair dinkum about really helping workers and industries across the board, they would not have spent $121 million on Work Choices propaganda—nearly 100,000 Work Choices mousepads and 436,000 Work Choices booklets. If they were going to be really concerned about what was necessary to help Australian workers, they would not have attempted to turn the clock back to the 19th century. The shadow minister talked about the fact that we are allegedly going back to 1970s. That is simply nonsense. I wonder whether he has read both the pieces of legislation before the House today. If he had read the legislation before the House, read the explanatory memoranda and read the information that is necessary in the circumstances, he would not come into this place and say such nonsense.

The government, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, has continued its spirit of consultation and cooperation with all relevant stakeholders. The first piece of legislation is the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009. It is the first to make the transition and consequential amendments. There are many changes to this particular legislation. The second one, which is the Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009, deals with the consequential amendments to all other Commonwealth legislation, including amendments to over 70 Commonwealth acts. It is anticipated that not only Victoria but also other states will take up the necessary option of getting involved in a national process, because we think it is important that it happen. We think it is important for the sake of the country, and the dingo fences across the country have to go down. There are many areas in which we have taken steps and it has been done on a bipartisan basis in the areas of corporations law, family law and defamation law—lots of areas where bipartisan approaches have been undertaken to ensure that happens.

We have heard speeches from the spokespeople from the coalition today in this House about small business. There are about 1.9 million small businesses in this country and there are about four million people employed by them. The budget is full of help for small business. They have never talked about this and they never acknowledge that—except they claim that we are about destroying small businesses. We know that small businesses are the engine room of employment in this country. We know that because the people in our electorates work in small businesses. We know that is the case in the retail sector, in cafes, in doctors’ surgeries, in newsagents, in small business operations with tradesmen. We know that is the case, and there would not be a person on this side of the House that would not support small business. Many people have told us—and many people in particular have told me—how pleased they were that the government has taken steps in the budget to help small business.

In my electorate the Ipswich Business Enterprise Centre is up and running. We know that the small business support line will assist small businesses. We know the small business and general business tax break will assist small business because we increased it from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We know the PAYG 2009-10 cash flow relief will help small businesses. We know that the research and development tax credit will help small businesses, as will the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. The Commonwealth Commercialisation Institute will also give small businesses a chance to turn great ideas into the commercial reality, to employ people in small business.

That is the reality. The government is supporting small businesses and we hear alarmism from those opposite. Work Choices is in their DNA, in their blood, in their tissue and in their muscle. It is in every aspect of their being. They cannot bear to say it, but they come into this House and they fight and scream and kick, opposing what we are doing, and we know it is because in their heart of hearts they still support Work Choices and that is why they make speeches like the member for Mayo and the member for Stirling have made in this House. That is because they still support it and, if they ever got back on this side of the House, they would bring back Work Choices because they believe in Orwellian kinds of industrial relations systems. That is what they would do—every time they get a chance to do it, they do it. They did it in the dead of night on the wharves in this country some years ago, they did it when they got a majority just across in the Senate and they would do it again if they get that chance. So I say to the people of Australia: do not believe the rhetoric; do not believe the alarmism and do not believe the cries and howls that somehow they are supporting small business and employees across the country, because that is simply not true.

The reality is they are striving to reduce wages. That is what they do. That is what Work Choices was all about—destroying unions and reducing wages. We on this side of the House want to support small business because we know profitable small businesses, created through our assistance and with the ingenuity and the enterprise of the people of Australia will ensure decent wages for people. It will ensure that people can put a roof over their head, feed their families, clothe their families and ensure their economic prosperity. The legislation that is before the House is not about attacking small business. It is about fulfilling our election commitments. It is about doing what we told the Australian public we would do before the last election. And those opposite continue to frustrate it and continue to perpetrate and perpetuate myths and misinformation about this sort of information.

The bills that are before the House are part of the fabric and the framework of the Rudd government’s commitment to industrial relations harmony. A simple, effective and fair industrial relations system is what we went to the last election campaigning for, about and on, and we are delivering it today. I support the legislation. It is a great shame that those opposite cannot get behind the decision that was made in November 2007 and accept the political and economic reality of this country and support this legislation.

See this speech in context