Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Through the eighties and nineties one of the big economic reforms, one of the big things that was done to improve the way in which our economy created and protected jobs, and also at a time when the economy was being opened up to competition with the rest of the world, was the move to enterprise bargaining. We moved from a centralised wage-fixing system to one that said we would look at the conditions that apply to companies within particular sectors within the economy and we would tailor wage agreements to satisfy those conditions. Bear in mind that, through the early eighties, we went through wages explosions. We used to have wage agreements that were double-digit in nature that reflected an economy that was in severe need of reform and change, and we saw through those two decades the opening up of the economy and the changes within that were setting us on the trajectory for 25-years-plus of economic growth. It was about enterprise bargaining and it was one of those things that, again, made sure we had that flexibility in place. So imagine my surprise today, listening to this debate, when we hear those opposite within the coalition pick individual agreements that then go to individual enterprises and try to make this claim that unions somehow had ripped off the workers as part of those agreements—all for this fallacious argument that is being played out here on the floor that is suggesting that penalty rates had been traded off was because of something that unions had done, not that the businesses that advocated for them, mind you, but that that unions had done and agreed to.

How convenient is it to suspend reality, fact and the real-life circumstances that apply in the setting of those agreements—for example, that there has to be a better-off overall test that conditions that are put to be given away or traded away in one instance will see the creation of some other benefit; that something else will be done to improve the way in which workers are remunerated within a particular enterprise and that that is in place there; that these things have to, secondly, be voted upon by employees; and that employees themselves, be they union members or not, have to support those agreements that are being put in this. These are not considered, but what is being considered by this government is, instead of the way in which you would have enterprises make these arrangements in a climate where wages growth is at its lowest and where underemployment is at its highest, they would, regardless of the enterprise, to take out one plank straightaway—that is, they would remove people's protection on penalty rates. They would not give people the decision within an enterprise bargaining context to work out what is right, what is wrong or what is acceptable to them. No, the conservative government will come in and remove that protection straightaway—$77 out of the hands of 700,000 people; no enterprise bargaining.

The only time when this mob opposite supports anything that comes to the centralisation of wage fixing is to take stuff away from workers, is to take away the ability of lowest-paid. You never hear those opposite championing a wage increase for the lowest-paid in this country; it is always, 'Oh no, it's too expensive' or, in this case, they will be arguing not for a lift in conditions, but again to take away penalty rates.

You have got here today people arguing against, on the one hand, enterprise bargaining and what that might throw up and, in effect, arguing against one of the big things that has helped make sure that Australian firms are way more competitive. On the other hand, they have this semi-move back to centralised wage fixing where they can determine whether or not they rip out people's wages and conditions at a time where wages are so flat that people feel like the next wage increase will not be a wage increase whatsoever. This is the galling hypocrisy that you see in this debate from those opposite who somehow shroud themselves as the friend of the worker while, in the very debate, they are going to detract from the ability of those workers to actually hold onto the wages they rightly deserve. There needs to be fair dinkum consideration of what people are earning, how they are earning it, the conditions and the protections that are there, but you will never get that from a conservative government—never, ever will you get that from a conservative government.

See this speech in context