Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

You do not have to scratch the opposition very hard to find Work Choices coming bleeding out of every pore of their bodies. We have had so far two contributions and both have been lamenting the fact that Work Choices is dead. The member for Stirling, the shadow minister in relation to this area, has said that they are opposing the bill for two reasons: firstly, they do not like the way we got to where we got to with this bill in terms of having a national industrial relations system—and I will say something about that later; and, secondly, because they do not like Fair Work Australia. His justification for not liking Fair Work Australia was the lament of Work Choices: ‘Look, we don’t like the system because you’ve now got unfair dismissals and the costs this is going to bring.’ Opposition, wake up! We had an election two years ago. The Australian people spoke on this issue directly. They had the choice. They had your Work Choices or the Labor Party’s policy of Forward with Fairness. They spoke and they spoke decisively. It is time to get over it. You lost the election. Move on. Let us get on with the job of making a fair industrial relations system—a national industrial relations system that is fair for all Australians.

I listened to both the member for Stirling and the member for O’Connor and the particular reasons they are going to oppose this in relation to their pining for Work Choices. There were three things they mentioned. There was unfair dismissal. The member for O’Connor made it clear that he doesn’t like penalty rates—that if the opposition had their way in relation to industrial relations, there would not be penalty rates. That was another issue. So, workers beware out there. Penalty rates are still under threat from the opposition. They do not want to have unfair dismissals.

What a great time to the member for Mayo to enter the chamber. One of the architects of Work Choices is coming in perfectly on cue. I have been very fortunate that this is the second time that I have been speaking on industrial relations issues and the member for Mayo happens to come into the chamber to follow after me. It is a great privilege to have him following after me, but it is also terrific to remind the Australian population of the member for Mayo’s particular views on this. I am going to listen with great interest, because I am sure he is going to add a few more gems to the lament of Work Choices.

At this stage, before the member for Mayo even gets a chance to get to his feet, this is what the opposition are saying: ‘We want to do away with unfair dismissals. That is why we don’t like this bill.’ ‘We want to get rid of penalty rates,’ the member for O’Connor has told us. The member for O’Connor also told us that, if the opposition had their way, they would bring back AWAs. These are the three key issues that we fought the last election on. The resounding decision of the Australian population was that they rejected that view. They rejected the view of the member for Mayo; they rejected all the work he had done on the Howard legislation to put forward Work Choices. They said: ‘We don’t want that unfair system. We want a system that is fairer. We want the Labor Party’s position in relation to Forward with Fairness.’

One of the first pieces of legislation we put forward into this parliament was our efforts to abolish AWAs. Every time we have anything to do with industrial relations in this place we get members of the opposition lamenting that particular decision. But the Australian population wanted us to do that and we delivered in relation to that. This government is about creating a fairer, simpler, balanced and modern workplace relations system—a system that takes into account the views of both employers and employees; one that is simpler and meets the modern requirements of this economy.

We started to achieve this with the commencement of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 1 July this year. We now mark the next stage in implementing our plan, which is the legislation before us today: the Fair Work Amendment (State Referrals and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I am going to outline some of the key features of the bill, but first it is important to recall the stages of the government’s workplace relations reforms that have been implemented so far, despite the ongoing opposition from those on the opposition benches.

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 was introduced into parliament on 13 February 2008. The act abolished the making of new AWAs and introduced the no-disadvantage test to ensure workplace agreements could no longer disadvantage employees. That act also started the process to create new modern awards, which, when coupled with the National Employment Standards, will complete a fair and comprehensive safety net of conditions for employees. This is something that the member for O’Connor directly attacked in his contribution in this debate. Award modernisation will result in the creation of around 150 easy-to-find-and-apply modern awards with national application to replace more than 4,000 state and federal instruments.

The next step of the government’s workplace relations reform process was the passage of the Fair Work Act 2009, which commenced on 1 July 2009. It established a comprehensive safety net of minimum wages and employment conditions that cannot be stripped away; a new agreements framework, with bargaining in good faith at the enterprise level at its heart; and a new industrial umpire to oversee the system, Fair Work Australia, and a new education and enforcement body, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

We proposed in Forward with Fairness that a uniform national system would be achieved either by state governments referring powers for private sector workplace relations or other forms of cooperation and harmonisation. Our vision is for a workplace relations system that is fairer, simpler and more flexible and one which promotes productivity and economic growth—a system where businesses, large and small, are covered by one national law and system. This concept has been embraced by several states. The Tasmanian Minister for Workplace Relations, the Hon. Lisa Singh, recently said in that state’s parliament:

Participation in the new national workplace relations system will improve rigour, consistency and address the current jurisdictional and procedural problems.

The Queensland Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Cameron Dick, on 27 October said:

This bill today is a giant step forward in establishing a cooperative system that respects State rights, but also creates an overarching national industrial relations system which is in the best interests of business and workers.

It is not just our state counterparts that are saying positive things about a national workplace relations system. The Australian Industry Group in its submission to the Senate committee inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (State Referrals and Other Measures) Bill 2009 said:

Australia’s modem economy and the need to remain globally competitive necessitates that a national system be implemented. All Australian employees and employers in the private sector should have the same system for employee entitlements and employment obligations.

The Fair Work (State Referral and Consequential and Other Amendments) Bill 2009, which the Deputy Prime Minister introduced to parliament on 27 May this year, was the first stage in implementing this na-tional system. The act supported a renewal of Victo-ria’s referral of workplace relations powers from 1 July 2009 to provide continued certainty of coverage to the working people and employers of Victoria.

It was indicated at the time that the act’s framework would be adapted in future Commonwealth legislation to accommodate anticipated further references of power from other states, while observing that the reference framework may require amendment to account for the views and needs of other states choosing to refer. This bill answers the many calls made by business over many years to end the overlap and duplication of state and federal workplace relations systems; to end the inefficiency, uncertainty and legal complexity for Australian businesses and employees. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has stated:

The level of complexity created by competing state and fed-eral workplace relations systems is a decades-old problem which has been thrown into sharp relief by our contemporary market economy. Replication, overlap and confusion be-tween state and federal workplace regulation has become increasingly unsustainable.

The Australian Industry Group has also noted the complexity and wastefulness of multiple systems. They said:

On top of this, all but one of the States continued to develop and enhance their own industrial systems. No matter how well many of these systems operate the fact remains that no employer wants to be faced with dealing with six different systems in order to expand its business throughout Australia. The intermeshing and clash of these systems has nourished generations of industrial lawyers.

In answer to these calls, the previous government took the significant step of relying upon the corporations power of the Constitution to regulate for a national workplace relations system. But for many Australian employers and employees, Work Choices only contin-ued—and exacerbated—the problems of complexity, confusion, overlap and waste.

The partnership approach we have with the states is in stark contrast to the bullying tactics of the former coalition government. I take it from the shadow minister’s contribution that this is one of the aspects he has a problem with. He has a problem with the fact that our approach to industrial relations in harmonising or having the powers of these laws ceded to the Commonwealth has been an approach of cooperation. This seems to have brought some opposition from the shadow minister. I cannot even guess as to why the issue of cooperation is such a radical issue for him to grasp.

We want to make sure that these laws work properly. We want to make sure that the states are part of the solution not part of the problem so that we have a national industrial relations system. One of the reasons that Work Choices did not work is that the former government refused to sit down with the states to talk about industrial relations and achieving a national system. Their very arrogant view was that they would do it their way, that the states could lump it, that there was no other alternative. This government takes a very different approach. We try to work with the states in a whole range of areas, one of those being industrial relations.

In the absence of referrals of power from the states, the question of which system applies depends upon whether a business is a ‘constitutional corporation’ or not. That was one of the real problems with the approach of the former government to industrial relations—relying on this constitutional power and not reaching agreement with the states. This brought up some very real, practical problems. It means that corporations that derive revenue through donations—such as charities or through government grants—may not fall within the corporations power. The jurisdictional coverage of an employer can change at any particular point in time if its activities change. For example, a charity raising money for medical research could open a second-hand goods shop to raise funds only to find it is now seen as ‘trading’ and that this leads to a change in its jurisdictional coverage. The approach the former government took was a nonsense in trying to achieve a national industrial relations system by bullying people into their particular philosophical view. The approach we have taken of cooperating is the only way we are going to achieve a national system.

The question of coverage also depends on the nature of the entity running the business. For example, a pro-fessional firm—say, an accounting or medical prac-tice—may run as a partnership or sole trader and be in a state system. A very similar business down the street may be incorporated and therefore in the federal sys-tem and on a different award. And there are many more examples of the perverse outcomes, confusion and complexity that face businesses in relation to the juris-dictional issues of an approach which relies solely on the corporations power.

There are thousands of employers and employees who are not trading corporations but who have been in the federal system for a long time and as a result of longstanding awards made in settlement of an inter-state industrial dispute. These awards were preserved on a transitional basis under Work Choices. In the absence of state referrals of power, employers and employees on these transitional awards would have fallen back to the state systems from March 2011.

For example, approximately 70 per cent of the farm businesses covered by the Transitional Pastoral Award are unincorporated and, without this bill, these farmers and their employees would fall back into state systems. And the uncertainty they were facing under Work Choices was exacerbated by the fact that many farmers operate across state borders and would have had to commence to apply different state and federal work-place relations laws. The uniform national workplace relations system for the private sector will resolve once and for all the confusion and complexity.

Employers and employees will, for the first time, have the same laws, tribunals, minimum conditions, rights and entitlements as their counterparts doing the same work, regardless of whether they are within the same state or across a border; regardless of whether they are trading as a corporation, a sole trader or a partnership. The new national system will make it far easier for businesses and employees to find the infor-mation they need. This is especially important in my electorate of Dobell on the beautiful New South Wales Central Coast where small business is the largest em-ployer. This new system will result in a permanent, intrinsic efficiency for businesses, especially for small businesses that do not have the benefit of specialised human resources staff. With this bill and associated state referrals, the Fair Work system will provide a sin-gle point of access for all private sector workplace rela-tions services for Australia. There will be one website, one phone number, one tribunal and one inspectorate.

As I have already indicated, there is significant support among the states for the national system. Victoria remade its referral earlier this year. The successful passage of referral legislation in the Tasmanian and Queensland parliaments and the introduction of referral legislation in the South Australian parliament followed. Discussions with New South Wales are continuing cooperatively.

The enactment of these references is a vote of confidence in the government’s new fair work laws and marks the next step in the creation of a national system. South Australian, Tasmanian and Queensland businesses will no longer have to deal with complex jurisdictional questions about which system of workplace relations they are operating in. Employees in those states will now benefit from the government’s new fair and balanced laws, including 10 guaranteed National Employment Standards and modern awards. 

The Western Australian government, as the member for O’Connor pointed out, has decided not to refer its industrial relations powers and instead will consider other forms of harmonisation. This decision puts Western Australia completely out of step with all other states and territories and prevents employers and employees in that state from reaping the full benefits of a national system.

Consistent with our Forward with Fairness commitments, the bill recognises that referring states can choose the extent to which matters relating to state public sector or local government employment are included or excluded from references. Victoria has referred its public sector and local governments. Tasmania has also referred its local government employers and employees. Queensland and South Australia have retained these sectors within their state systems.

Once enacted, this bill will give effect to the references of South Australia, Tasmania and any other state that refers its workplace relations matters to the Commonwealth on or before 1 January 2010. These references will enable the Commonwealth to extend the Fair Work Act in referring states to cover unincorporated employers and their employees, outworker entities and extend the operation of the general protections; amend the Fair Work Act so that it applies uniformly in referring states; and establish arrangements for the transition of referral employees and employers from state industrial or workplace relations systems to the new national system. The bill recognises that referring states can choose the extent to which matters relating to state public sector or local government employment are included or excluded from references.

The bill will enable referring states to terminate their amendment references and remain in the national system in the following circumstances: by proclamation of the state governor with six months notice, if the amendment references of other referring states all terminate on the same day; or by proclamation of the state governor with three months notice, if the governor considers that an amendment to the Fair Work Act is inconsistent with the fundamental workplace relations principles.

The fundamental workplace relations principles encompass requirements that the Fair Work Act should provide for, and continue to provide for, a strong, simple and enforceable safety net of minimum employment standards; genuine rights and responsibilities to ensure fairness, choice and representation at work; collective bargaining at the enterprise level with no provision for individual statutory agreements; fair and effective remedies through an independent umpire; protection from unfair dismissal; and an independent tribunal system and an independent authority able to assist employers and employees within a national workplace relations system.

These were the principles that underpinned the government’s Forward with Fairness legislation. They were also the issues that were at the heart of the last election. It should not come as any surprise to the shadow minister that these conditions are there for the states in relation to the referral powers, although he did seem a little confused as to why that might be.

This legislation is part of the ongoing reform of the industrial relations system that this government committed itself to before the last election. This is the next stage in making sure that we have a national system, a system that provides fairness to both employers and employees, a system that is simpler, a system that encourages bargaining, a system that takes away the inefficiencies of multiple layers of regulation through the various state systems and the federal system. This is good legislation that puts in place a national framework. This is something that we went to the last election on. This is something that should be supported by this parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context