Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

recognises the enormous hurt to Australian working men and women owing to the enactment of the Work Choices legislation;

(2)

recognises the extraordinary contribution of Australian rural and regional workers to their communities and the national economy;

(3)

recognises the particular damage to employment conditions and employment prospects in rural and regional Australia;

(4)

takes immediate action to restore protection for employment conditions and employment prospects in rural and regional Australia; and

(5)

takes note of the Howard Government’s agenda to remove employment conditions and employment security, particularly in regional and rural Australia.

Last Saturday, Victorians voted in large numbers for the return of the Bracks government and, although the reasons for the re-election of the Labor government are many and varied, there is no doubt that one of the reasons was a resounding rejection of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation. Interestingly, Labor continues to enjoy extraordinary support in regional Victoria. In fact, Labor maintained dominance in regional Victoria, while the Liberal Party went backwards. Only The Nationals, by walking away from the extreme and unfair IR laws, made any gains whatsoever for the conservatives in my state.

The fact is that, however unpopular such laws are across the nation, Work Choices legislation is really on the nose in rural and regional Australia—and for good reason. Labor’s IR task force has this year been to many towns and regional areas, including Launceston, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Townsville and others, which I am sure will be mentioned in the debate today. From the meetings we have held in those regions, I can conclude that there is a high degree of anxiety about the way in which the Commonwealth has chosen to enact legislation on regulating workplaces across the country.

Last month the task force visited Devonport, in north-west Tasmania, and spoke to Phil Upton and his wife about the severe cut to his wage after his employer was bought out by another company. In effect, Phil was forced to sign an agreement that stripped him of all penalty rates and overtime provisions, which led to a cut of almost $200 in his gross weekly income. This obscene wage cut has forced him to find other work and, indeed, he is now employed on a casual basis in north-west Tasmania.

In Bundaberg last week, Labor’s IR task force met with a number of church leaders, small businesses and rural workers. One such worker was David Bunyoung, who was sacked without cause. At the end of his shift in August this year, this man received a letter which indicated that, for operational reasons, he was no longer employed. He had received no prior warning, but he suspects that he was sacked because he was injured for two weeks in May and claimed on WorkCover for that period. David estimates that, in the nine years he worked for his employer, he took no more than seven days off. Indeed, until he was sacked in August this year, in 42 years of work he had never been counselled regarding his employment. This could not have happened, and would not have happened, if Work Choices legislation was not in force in this country.

The task force was also provided with a copy of a non-union collective agreement which regulates fruit pickers and vegetable pickers in the region—the Hinkler Park Plantation Horticultural Employees Collective Agreement—which has been certified and filed by the Employment Advocate. This agreement has fundamentally reduced the award conditions that regulate employment in that industry. It has extended the 40-hour week to a 42½-hour week and it has removed all penalty rates for public holidays. It forces employees to work public holidays if the employer so wishes, and it will pay them only a day off in lieu. In other words, they are required to work Christmas Day if the employer says so. Indeed, they will only receive a single rate of pay if they are forced to work those days. The penalty rates have gone, the overtime entitlements have gone and there is now a $2 per hour payment for weekend work, which is about 80 per cent less than the award conditions that had applied to those employees.

As we go throughout the country, particularly in regional and rural Australia, we are seeing that this legislation is hurting ordinary working families. There are fewer employment prospects in many of these country towns. Indeed, they are very badly affected—and when people are sacked, in the way in which David was sacked in Bundaberg, they do not know how to explain it to their family or the community. It is an abject shame that the government has enacted this legislation. (Time expired)

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a person who ran a small business prior to being elected to the parliament—I ran a legal firm and employed many people—I have to say that good employees are valued employees. My experience as an employer—and it is also the experience of my constituents who talk to me about these matters and have made it clear to me—is that, when an employee is worth while and productive, employers will go out of their way to ensure that that employee remains on the payroll. The last thing a business wants is instability and to lose valued employees who have corporate knowledge. I cannot support the member for Gorton’s motion because I think the Work Choices legislation is a very positive initiative for Australian working men and women, as well as a positive initiative from the point of view of the Australian economy.

It is tremendous to see that there has been significant job growth in Australia since the introduction of the Work Choices legislation. Our unemployment rate has dropped to the lowest level in over 30 years. I am proud to be part of a party that supports a government that has not only done an outstanding job in managing the economy during a decade in office but also shown the conviction and strength of character to look beyond the barrage of hollow criticisms about these new laws—from the ACTU and members opposite—and go ahead and introduce what has proven to be and will continue to be a valuable and economically sound new industrial relations system.

I mentioned in the House last year that the government will not apologise for Work Choices—and, as the positive results continue to flow in, that clearly remains the case. It is regrettable that those opposite have waged a publicity battle against this important legislation, which has helped to create a climate of fear and uncertainty amongst the very people the union movement and the Labor Party claim to support: workers and their families.

As radio broadcaster Alan Jones noted several months ago in his talkback show on 11 August, the union movement has claimed that Work Choices will all but lead to the end of the world. What a ridiculous statement! It is unforgivable that the campaign against Work Choices so blatantly plays on the ambitions and hopes of workers, using them as pawns in a politically motivated campaign to smear a workable and successful new system. As Mr Jones so cleverly articulated: is the ALP genuinely concerned about the worker and the truth or is it just using the worker to score a few political points?

The campaign is running out of steam and the labour movement seems to be getting worried. Some 205,000 new jobs have been created since the Work Choices system came into play, with the greater proportion of them—some 184,000—being full-time positions.

The coalition government’s dedication to ensuring that rural workers are able to find jobs has been further demonstrated by a program that saw some 14 job seekers from Coffs Harbour being flown to Western Australia to go straight into jobs in the construction industry. It is a program that matches unemployed people living in areas with few jobs to positions in areas that are looking for workers. In addition, wages have grown significantly since 1996 under the coalition’s leadership—in fact, by more than 16 per cent, compared to a paltry 0.3 per cent growth over the 13 years of Labor government between 1983 and 1996—and have continued to grow since the introduction of Work Choices.

The evidence in support of Work Choices mounts up. We have seen the TV and print advertisements that were designed to shoot holes in Work Choices by showing us supposedly real people facing real risks due to the new laws. These people and their situations were all investigated by the Office of Workplace Services, which found they were all dodgy. In one of the ads, an abattoir worker claimed he was being sacked due to Work Choices. However, the investigation revealed that the abattoir was doing it tough financially and was forced to make the tough decision to avoid going under. Work Choices had nothing to do with it. I have lots of other instances but, regrettably, time is short.

Work Choices has proven to be a major headache for the opposition. They claimed it would rob Australian workers, but, to the contrary, it has in fact delivered job growth and continued wages growth. Work Choices is making Australian families better off. Labor claimed it would bring a wave of job losses, but the only examples brought forward were found to be bogus. Work Choices has been a good thing for Australia and will continue to be so in the future. (Time expired)

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion and the member for Gorton’s comments on the very severe impacts of the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws on people in rural and regional Australia. How interesting and bamboozling it has been to listen to the comments made by the member for Fisher! He shows how out of touch and arrogant this government has become. When you speak to people on the ground and hear their concerns firsthand, ordinary everyday Australians are saying how concerned they are about the extreme impacts of this government’s Work Choices legislation. The member for Fisher certainly shows how out of touch the government has become.

Throughout the nation, we are seeing families hurting from this extreme Work Choices legislation. In particular, those in rural and regional areas are really feeling it and doing it tough. We already have families under much pressure, with increasing interest rates and the cost of living rising all the time. And now, of course, the Work Choices legislation is impacting very severely on families.

The member for Gorton spoke before about federal Labor’s industrial relations task force. Earlier in the year the task force visited Richmond and we had a forum to which many locals came along. They spoke about their concerns and their situations and were able to tell us firsthand about how their working conditions had been taken away, about how their wages had been slashed, about how they had lost their penalty rates and about how scared they were for the future of their families. This is what the task force heard. I continue to hear from locals every single day about how they are being impacted right across all the different industries and how terrified they are about their working conditions and the future.

One point that is very pertinent to rural and regional areas is that people are afraid of speaking out. When they approach me about it, they are terrified to speak to the media about it. They are terrified to make their conditions and their concerns known more widely. It is different in regional and rural areas. If you are in a big city then you might be able to go to the other side of town to look for work, but if you are in a regional area and have spoken up about how severely you have been treated then everyone is going to know and everyone is going to talk about it. That makes it very hard for people in regional areas.

It is just part of the intimidatory nature of this legislation that it keeps people from speaking out at all and just adds to their fear about the whole situation. It certainly adds to the distress they are already feeling when they are just too scared to speak out. I commend those who have so bravely spoken out, particularly those in my electorate who have spoken about how their conditions have been taken away.

In rural and regional areas we also have teenage unemployment. In my electorate of Richmond, 30 per cent of teenagers, or almost one in three, are unemployed—a huge amount. When these young people are trying to get jobs, when they look at the unfair working conditions they could be facing, it is very difficult for them. How can they negotiate with a large multinational employer? How are they able to do that? It is an unbalanced relationship. They have no power in those situations. The same applies to many other people across the community. But, with those high rates of teenage unemployment, it is particularly difficult for young people, desperately struggling as they are, to get into the workforce.

Many small business owners have also told me how adversely affected they have been. If a business down the road is paying less in wages, how can they compete? Where is the even playing field? A lot of small business owners have told me how severely this has impacted on the way they carry out their business—and often small business owners are the backbone of regional areas.

There is a huge proportion of elderly people in my electorate—and often they are the people who fought very hard to get decent working conditions. Many of them are really concerned about the working conditions for their children and grandchildren in the future.

Another major aspect for regional areas is the effect that the Work Choices legislation will have on tourism. Tourism is one of the major businesses in my electorate of Richmond. It really is the backbone of the community. If people across Australia are forced to trade away a lot of their leave, what will happen to areas that rely on tourism? Of course, the numbers will go down and we will not have as many people travelling to those areas. That in turn will impact on the number of jobs in the area and affect the whole local community.

A lot of tourism operators have told me how concerned they are as we see the full effects of these extreme industrial relations laws. The reality is that the only way to get rid of these extreme laws is to get rid of the Howard government, because only a federal Labor government will restore fairness and equity in the workplace.

This Thursday is a national day of action. We are going to be seeing hundreds of thousands of people across Australia standing up to the Howard government’s extreme legislation. I know that in regional and rural areas we will be seeing thousands of people as well. I commend all those who will be attending those rallies. (Time expired)

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate on this motion on employment moved by the member for Gorton. One aspect of the motion that I do agree with is:

(2)

recognises the extraordinary contribution of Australian rural and regional workers to their communities and the national economy ...

We all recognise that, and that is the only point in the entire motion on which I concur with the honourable member for Gorton.

The member for Gorton introduced his motion by saying that the state election on Saturday in Victoria was an indication of the Victorian public’s repudiation of the industrial relations laws of this government. One thing is for sure: this week, because of their national day of action, there will be motion after motion and claim after claim which will be made regarding Work Choices and a willingness, suddenly, to lay at the feet of the federal government all that has happened in Victoria. I pose the question to the member for Gorton: is the repudiation of the industrial relations legislation reflected in the four per cent to six per cent swing against the Labor Party in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne? The eastern suburbs of Melbourne were heavily targeted by the Labor Party and the swing there was four per cent to six per cent against them. Contrary to what has been said, Work Choices has worked.

I have visited regional and rural Australia, as has the member for Gorton. Perhaps we were not speaking to the same groups or the same people, because the story I get is quite the opposite. Since March 2006, when Work Choices came in, we have seen a record number of jobs. Jobs create prosperity; jobs create an opportunity for families to get on. Jobs create these things—not unions. A union cannot guarantee a person a job and a government cannot guarantee a person a job and prosperity. What can of course are economic conditions. The Howard government has created the economic conditions necessary for prosperity and for jobs growth. Since March this year we have seen over 205,000 jobs created, providing an opportunity for a lot of people, often for the first time, to have an income and provide for their families.

Contrast that with the Labor Party’s record when there was high regulation. There was strong industrial relations regulation during the eighties and the nineties. When the member for Brand, the Leader of the Opposition, was Minister for Employment, Education and Training, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.9 per cent, with over one million Australians out of work. That was in an environment of high regulation. What have we seen since March 2006? We have seen extraordinary levels of employment growth, with over 205,000 new jobs being created.

In some of the regional towns that I have been to, and others that we know of, we have seen the growth take place. For example, the unemployment rate in the electorate of Capricornia—Rockhampton, which the member for Gorton apparently visited—was 10.1 per cent in June 2006; today it is four per cent. Therefore, we are seeing jobs growth taking place. Another example is the New South Wales electorate of Charlton. In 1996, the unemployment rate in the electorate of Charlton was 11.2 per cent. In June 2006, the unemployment rate was 5.4 per cent. In 1996, 44 electorates had double-digit unemployment rates and many of these electorates covered the rural and regional areas of Australia. In June 2006, not one electorate had double-digit unemployment. Can I also say—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can say what you like.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton will be missing question time if he is not careful.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Gorton to at least acknowledge that what this government has done has helped to drive unemployment down and therefore enable real jobs growth to take place. You do not have to listen to what we have to say about this. The National Farmers Federation, very recently after the High Court decision, rejected claims by Labor’s shadow minister for regional development, Simon Crean, that Work Choices had had a detrimental impact on regional Australia. Work Choices, as the NFF has said, has provided the flexibility and a focus on productivity gains that regional communities have sought for many years, and we are seeing that with the growth taking place. The member for Richmond, who is no longer present in the House, mentioned that people would be sacked and that they did not have another job to go to. The member for Gorton and I at the moment are travelling around Australia looking at that employment growth, and we know that every time someone is dismissed it is a cost to the business. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion of the member for Gorton which is before us today. I want to deal to some extent with some of the arguments that have been raised on the other side of the House. The member for Fisher said that employers tell him that if they have a good employee they will of course not sack them. What else would you expect an employer to say to you? They are not going to say, ‘Even if I have a good employee I will sack them.’ The reality is that 90 per cent of employers out there want to look after and do the right thing by their staff. None of us would argue differently. We on this side of the House are concerned about those who are vulnerable to abuse, and there will always be abuse no matter what the system. Whether it is industrial relations, health, education—whatever you want to talk about—there is a capacity for people to be abused. For me, and for others on this side of the House, the role of government should be to ensure that in those circumstances people have some sort of protection. Our problem with this legislation is that it takes away all of those protections from that percentage of the population who are particularly vulnerable.

The legislation is called Work Choices. Let us talk about what choice relies on. Choice relies on having the capacity to decide between alternatives. We met many people in rural and regional Australia as we travelled around with the task force, and I cannot tell you the number of times we had to meet people in camera because they did not dare talk about their circumstances publicly. What sort of a country are we living in where people in rural and regional areas are too intimidated to say publicly what has happened to them and why they are concerned?

The government argues there has been a massive growth in jobs. Let us not get into how jobs were defined 10 years ago and how they are defined now. The community are not fooled. In my region of the Illawarra and in the electorates along the south-eastern coastline, unemployment still runs at over 10 per cent—double the national average. The member for Richmond mentioned teenage unemployment. In my electorate teenage unemployment, according to the latest figures, is 43 per cent. That is not kids in school; it is but kids who are in neither education nor employment but are registered as looking for work. We are creating a pool of young people with limited skills and education to enable them to make decisions between jobs. They have very little experience.

I hear the stories of these young people all the time—not so much from the young people, but from their parents. The parents, who know that it is wrong, ring in. The young person is put on by an employer. A classic example is: ‘We think we might have an apprenticeship or a traineeship. Why don’t you come in and do a couple of weeks free work experience? We will give you a try for a month and, if you work out, we will give you a traineeship or an apprenticeship.’ The young person goes in and does the work, and suddenly they are told, ‘You are not suitable,’ or, ‘We are no longer employing in that position.’ Funnily enough, a big influx of those sorts of complaints has occurred in the last few weeks. Why would that be? It is because Christmas is coming up and it is nice to have a few cheap extra staff over the Christmas period.

For those people who are most vulnerable to exploitation, laws and legislation should provide some protection. The supposed ‘Work Choices’ legislation does not do that. If you are living in rural or regional Australia, the impacts are far more significant for you. There is probably only one local newspaper or maybe a radio station—let’s not start on the communications legislation—and, if your story is in that newspaper or on that radio station, you fear that every employer will know you complained and therefore no-one will give you a go and you will be stuck. You will not be able to get employment in your local area. Those are the problems we face.

The member for Richmond mentioned tourism. Tourism is a big sleeper in this legislation. I would be interested to hear the other side start to address it. Our task force went to Nowra and heard from several tourism organisations based there that are very worried by the fact that Australians already have a pretty appalling rate of taking their holiday leave. When I grew up, you had your couple of weeks off at Christmas. You packed the tent in the car and off you went to the coast somewhere. People are not taking their leave and travelling as it is. When they are encouraged by this legislation to work over the holiday periods—‘You don’t need to take holidays; cash out the leave’—we will see a real impact on tourism in our regions. (Time expired)

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today, in this debate on the private member’s motion on the Work Choices legislation, to speak on behalf of the employers, not only in the Riverina but right across Australia. Currently in the Riverina we are facing the worst drought we have ever faced. Business is in decline. My issue is that employers are keeping the staff on. To keep their staff on they are using up their resources from their good times—meaning from when their businesses made a profit. Profit can be a dirty word in the eyes of many in the opposition.

We hear in the House today about rural families doing it tough. That is exactly correct, but of the many people who are doing it tough most are employers in rural and regional Australia. I do not think anyone in the Riverina could deny that the majority of employers have a good relationship with their employees and that these business owner-operators value their employees’ service. Most of my Riverina businesses consistently put their employees’ needs high on their personal agenda as they currently stand with this encroaching devastating drought. That is simply because they know that their business is reliant on good staff, and they certainly do not want to lose good staff, even if they have to utilise their own resources in the times when the money is not coming through their front doors.

On the reverse side, most employees in my electorate of Riverina recognise that they would not have a job if it were not for the personal commitment of their employers. Most of the employees are very appreciative of that fact—not that you would hear that from opposition members. Employers deserve a fair go in this debate on the Work Choices industrial relations changes. I do not think they have had a fair go since the introduction of Work Choices. Most employers have done nothing wrong—they may never do anything wrong—but they are maligned and defamed every day in the media and in this House. Most employers work hard right alongside their employees. They put their homes—their assets—on the line every day to meet the running costs of their businesses. The running costs of a business include the employees’ wages and conditions, including superannuation, and a whole host of training and personal development. There is little or no recognition of this in the debates and propaganda that we witness on a day-to-day basis in the news on industrial relations.

I am embarrassed for employers. They deserve some consideration in this debate, but they get very little, except when something pops up out of the blue and then all employers have the same stone cast against them. What if that were to happen to employees? Of course you will get a bad employer, but for every bad employer you will get an equally bad employee. How do employees feel when they are all cast as the same sort of—bad—employee? They are certainly not all the same. In my electorate employment opportunities with local firms have been presented to people. It is time for us to recognise the value of both the business owner-operator—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.