House debates

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Bills

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2012; Second Reading

12:39 pm

Photo of Stephen JonesStephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying, these matters were re-enlivened throughout the 1990s and the earlier part of the last decade as awards were replaced by collective agreements, as the gaps between wages contained in collective agreements and awards grew, as restructuring and corporatisation ensued, as fragmentation around traditional understandings of industries occurred and through the opening up of our economy and the public sector to competition and contestability.

These provisions have a long history. The reforms that we find ourselves debating before the House today have a long history. This legislation is important because it applies and extends the legislation to current state system employees. It matters a lot because there is currently a lot of action in this space. We see state governments—currently, state conservative governments—who are taking very aggressive action. In your state, Mr Deputy Speaker, we see the Baillieu government sacking state public servants and corporatising state public entities and ensuring that the long-settled wages and conditions of state system employees are now under threat.

This legislation is important because it provides some security to those public sector employees and others. They know that, if there is some change to the ownership or legal entity of their employer, they have some security of their wages and conditions and the comfort of knowing that these will be protected by federal law in the event of such a transfer.

With those brief comments, I commend the package of legislation to the House.

I think it is good legislation. It is legislation in keeping with those reforms I outlined before: the riddance of the dreaded Work Choices legislation, the introduction of equal pay for community sector workers, the introduction of safe rates for transport industry workers and the improvement in superannuation arrangements—all of which, I might say, were hotly contested by those opposite. Further to that, there is a willingness to ensure that, when issues do arise and we do need to refine the law—when we consult with business, when we consult with unions and when we talk to employees—we are ready, willing and able to make the appropriate modifications to ensure that they are continuously fit for purpose. I commend the legislation to the House.

Comments

No comments