Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is the first birthday of Work Choices. Since I have been in this parliament I have seen this government celebrate what it thinks are its victories. I have seen the backslapping and the wine drinking in the corridors, and I thought we would probably see that today. I am a wee bit surprised to find that there is no cake, no candle, no big expensive fundraising dinner and no real acknowledgement by the government of the first anniversary of Work Choices, an act which this government claims is the centrepiece of its economic reforms after a decade in government. There is no celebration at all. In fact, if it had not been raised by the opposition today, this momentous day—the first anniversary of the centrepiece of its economic reform agenda—would have gone by largely unremarked upon by a government that claims to believe that Work Choices is the backbone of Australia’s prosperity.

If you believe the government today, Work Choices has been responsible for every new job in the last 12 months and even responsible for every job in the last 15 years before it existed. What an extraordinary piece of legislation the government believes it is! Yet there was no party today: no cake, no candle and no big dinner. Why, given the government’s unswerving faith in these laws, are we not seeing a celebration? The answer is simple: it is all empty spin. There is no unswerving faith in Work Choices. You can tell that by the body language and the silence of the government benches at this moment. There is no unswerving faith. The members opposite know that very well because, just like members on this side, they hear it every day when people come into their offices and tell them of the damage this legislation is doing to their families.

At least after the initial introduction of Work Choices the government had the courage of its convictions and directed the Office of the Employment Advocate to collect data on the impact of the introduction of AWAs. That was until the first figures came out, and they were pretty damning. Suddenly, they directed the office not to collect data. Suddenly there were no more figures. Why, when the Prime Minister believes, as he stated so clearly today, that workers have never had it so good as under Work Choices, would he stop the collection of data? Why wouldn’t he want to prove with data that this legislation is so good? It is simple: the Prime Minister and the government know that it is not true. They know that they would not survive the truth. They know that these unfair workplace laws are hurting workers and their families. They know the same way that all of us on this side know: people come to our offices every day and tell us. If the members opposite were honest, they would admit that people come to their offices every day and tell them that.

The government know about the damage these unfair laws have inflicted and they do not care. They do not care about the damage. They only care about making sure that there is not any blowback for them. They do not want to become their own collateral damage, and they are prepared to leave the workers of Australia worse off and without security, whatever it takes to protect their own jobs. We hear the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister rave on and on at question time about how they care about jobs. We know very well that they care about their own. But they will leave these unfair laws and the damage in place, and they will tough it out to keep their own jobs safe.

What we get from the government is endless political spin about Work Choices. Let us look not at what they say but at what they know. We know they know this because the figures are out there from the Office of the Employment Advocate and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We hear a lot from the minister about how women are better off under AWAs. But, to compare, women on AWAs working full time earn an average of $2.30 less per hour, or $87.40 less per week, than women on collective agreements. It is worse for part timers, and for casuals it is worse again. Women on AWAs who work as casuals earn $4.70 less per hour for every hour they work than those on collective agreements. This is fact, not spin. Looking more generally at AWAs, 100 per cent of them cut at least one so-called protected award condition. The government have cut far too deep with this unfair Work Choices legislation. They have gone a long way too far. They can deny it and they can ignore it, but the constituents out there will not. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Australian electorate this evening, on this anniversary of Work Choices, the way that the unions in Australia scalp Australian workers. I want to demonstrate how these workers are scalped by the unions that purport to represent them. In my hands I have a letter from the Australian Workers Union to a constituent of mine in my electorate which is basically a letter of demand for money. I will outline this as I go. This letter is from Tim Daly, the branch secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union. I will not go through the whole letter because it will take up the time, but it is basically saying: ‘Shock, horror’—as they have said before—‘the sky’s going to fall in, your jobs are gone and your family’s ruined. Anything that happens from now on can be blamed on Work Choices and industrial relations reform, and if you don’t do something about it all your jobs are gone.’ It says:

As part of the campaign aimed at sending a message to the federal government, the Western Australian branch of the AWU is throwing its support behind the Labor candidate in an effort to win the seat of Canning at the upcoming federal election, and I am writing to you to do the same. We will only keep what we are fighting for if we fight for it. This candidate is a staunch supporter of the workers and the union movement and deserves your support.

And it asks for financial support. It is obvious that the Australian Labor Party are trying to inject into this House another union hack. We know that coming our way are more union hacks. The poor old member from Maribyrnong is being replaced by a union hack, which is actually part of this letter. We know that poor old George Campbell, the champion of the Left, was rolled by Dougie Cameron of the Left because he was not radical enough. Less than 20 per cent of the workforce in Australia now belong to a union, yet something like 78 per cent of Labor representatives in both houses are union operatives. So it is just not representative.

Further, it says here in a brochure—I will not mention his name:

... your candidate for Canning.

John Howard is responsible for the most unfair and draconian industrial relations laws this country has ever seen.

So it is the same old mantra.

The laws will impact on you, your children, your family, for years to come.

Et cetera.

The AWU West Australian branch is targeting the federal seat of Canning with an AWU member as its candidate, and we need your help to defeat the Howard government.

Bill Shorten says:

To dismiss the Howard government we need to win the seat of Canning. Your financial support for this candidate for Canning campaign is vital.

Here is the rub:

To win we are seeking your $5 per week or $10 per fortnight from each member via electronic banking system. For more information, talk to your convenor or organiser.

The account details are:

Halls Head Community Bank, Bendigo Bank, BSB: 633000, ACC: 129088654 ...

And the signatories are the union organisers. This is more of a scalping of the Australian workers.

The Prime Minister has said that this country and the workers of this country have never seen the conditions so good, and that is true. On commercial television tonight the commentator said, ‘In the last two years, workers of this country have had a 13 per cent increase in real take-home wages.’ This is an independent commentator saying there has been a 13 per cent increase in the last two years. What happened in the 13 years of a Labor government? They bragged about driving wages down and over 13 years there was an increase in wages of something like just over two per cent. So who is the real friend of the worker? The real friend of the worker in this House is the coalition government. We are giving more workers jobs and we are giving more workers money in their pockets. The best thing you can do for a worker in this country is to give them a job.

I suspect that the union organisers that are writing this letter do not contribute one cent to this fighting fund, just as they do not go out on strike when their poor old workers go out on strike. They are using the workers, and I want to tell the people in the Australian Workers Union around Pinjarra and Alcoa: ‘You are being used by your union as a slush fund to try and run a political campaign. You should know that you are being stripped of funds.’ I heard today that they are even being hit for $1,500 as a one-off payment for this fighting fund. It is a disgrace and I will rail against it. (Time expired)

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The anniversary of the passage of the Work Choices legislation is anything but a cause for celebration for working Australians. The plight of Mr Leigh Scott, a labourer and an occupational health and safety representative working on an extension to Caulfield Grammar School in my electorate, is a case in point. He was sacked for no reason by the builder, ADCO Constructions. His sacking demonstrates why this anniversary commemorates something that, instead of giving, takes workers’ rights and conditions away. Why would, as the member for Gorton pointed out, this government remove the no disadvantage test if it had no advantage for the employers in these kinds of situations?

Let me dispel the spurious claim made by the previous speaker, the member for Canning, that these workplace laws are about building prosperity and promoting flexibility and choice for both workers and their employers. I do find it a little immodest of people in the government to claim that all the economic prosperity in Australia has nothing to do with the people who actually earn the money and produce the goods, especially with the mineral boom in Western Australia. It has nothing to do with the mining boom and nothing to do with huge demand from China; it is all due to the geniuses over there on the government benches and their workplace legislation! It is absolute nonsense.

During Mr Scott’s tenure as the occupational health and safety representative, there had been no industrial disputes on his site. There had been no accidents. He was punctual. He took no sick leave and always undertook overtime when he was asked. The extension of Caulfield Grammar School is due to be completed in October or November this year, and it was several weeks ahead of schedule. Overseeing his workplace, consisting of 20 labourers, in an efficient and safe manner, Mr Scott was sacked without recourse under the Work Choices legislation and replaced by his foreman’s 19-year-old son. He was told that he was being sacked owing to a lack of work, despite the fact that the extension to the school is not being scheduled for completion for another six months.

Mr Scott is 45 years old, with five children ranging from 12 to 25 years old. Four of his children still live at home. Their mother, Kerry, died of cancer less than three years ago. In addition to his responsibilities—and don’t smirk over there; this is a very serious situation for this poor fellow—he is the sole carer. One of his daughters, aged 15, has been diagnosed with juvenile arthritis and has had to learn to give herself injections to combat it. With all these responsibilities and with an exemplary work record, Mr Scott, a qualified occupational health and safety rep, was unceremoniously replaced as a labourer and as a safety rep without recourse, without the ability to appeal under the Work Choices legislation. Work choices? In Mr Scott’s case, what a joke!

In today’s Herald Sun, in an article entitled ‘When unfair means nothing’, Mr Scott stated:

I want my job back so I can care for my family.

Under the government’s extreme industrial relations agenda, with the Work Choices legislation the jewel in the Liberals’ inequitable crown, firms with fewer than 100 employees are shielded from unfair dismissal claims, however frivolous or utterly unfair the reasons for workers’ sackings may be. Where is the fairness, flexibility, and productivity gain that those opposite rhetorically boast that Work Choices has led to in real-life situations like that of Mr Scott? Having been ahead of schedule and without any industrial disputes, the workers at that place now find themselves without an occupational health and safety representative. Instead of Mr Scott, they have a 19-year-old unqualified boy. How this cosy arrangement contributes to safety or efficiency is anybody’s guess.

Leigh Scott, as a sole carer and breadwinner, contributes to the growing number of Australians under Work Choices who are cruelly given no choice whatsoever. Australian workers increasingly miss out on time with their families. They represent the second-highest number globally, after Japan, in terms of the percentage working about 50 hours a week. Sixty-three per cent of parents work more than 45 hours a week. More than two million Australian workers also work on Sundays—time they would otherwise get to spend with their families, time which most of them are not able to replace.

Under the Liberals’ extreme industrial relations agenda, the ‘choice’, as they term it, is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea—between not spending time with their families and not being able to support them financially. This is a Dickensian dichotomy, which has a qualified and efficient Australian worker—in this case ensuring workplace safety and productivity—now left without a livelihood for no good reason and with no work choices. This is an ‘anything goes’ mentality that is symbolised by this Work Choices legislation.

On the other hand, those on this side are firmly opposed to workers being sacked for no reason and are committed to ensuring that families like that of Leigh Scott will not be abandoned. As everyone in this House knows, when Labor are elected at the next election we will repeal this kind of legislation for the Leigh Scotts of this world.