Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that it is the wish of the House for the amendments proposed by the member for Calare and the opposition amendments to be debated in a series of groups and for the question on each group of amendments to be deferred. After the House has completed its consideration of the amendments, individual questions will be put on each group of amendments and on the government’s amendments as circulated.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (10) as circulated in my name:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 16-24), omit the definition of salary.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 13), omit paragraph (a), substitute:

             (a)    the AWA was or is lodged on or after 27 March 2006; and

(3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 15) after ‘AWA’ insert ‘was or’.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (lines 22-35), omit paragraph (c).

(5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 31-32), omit paragraph (a), substitute

             (a)    the variation of the AWA was or is lodged on or after 28 March 2006; and

(6)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 4-17), omit paragraph (c).

(7)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 34) after ‘AWA’ insert ‘was or’.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (line 3) to page 11 (line 3), omit proposed section 346G.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 2), omit

        ‘paragraphs 346E(1)(a), (b) and (c)’,

        substitute:

        ‘paragraphs 346E(1)(a) and (b)’.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (lines 14 and 15), omit

        ‘paragraphs 346E(1)(b) and (c)’,

        substitute

        ‘paragraph 346E(1)(b)’.

I will be brief in order to comply, reluctantly, with the travesty of this guillotined debate. This process is a classic example of why our parliament so desperately needs a review, an amendment process, hopefully both here and in the Senate, after the next election.

The effect of these 10 amendments is to, firstly, remove the income limit of $75,000 or less for the fairness test to be applied and, secondly, to apply the fairness test to all agreements made since Work Choices came into effect on 27 March 2006. This bill only appeared because the polls look so bad for the government. The mums and dads and battlers out there really are angry about the ramifications of this. Polling, apart from Newspoll, is no doubt telling the government this.

I draw the attention of the House to the situation of a 15-year-old coffee-shop worker in Sydney who is working for a particular chain. It is reported in today’s press—correctly, I assume—that she receives just over $8 an hour for weekend work, compared to the state award of $12 to $15 on Saturdays and Sundays. Her agreement cannot be included under these amendments, nor can she under any circumstances negotiate fairly for herself. It sounds very much like disadvantage to me.

My changes will avoid the creation of two classes of workers who are on AWAs because of their income or because of when they started work. I expect that the retrospective nature of the second change will meet with criticism from the government, but it can be done, as evidenced in the recent well-publicised WorkDirections case. Fair is fair, regardless of when an agreement was signed. As for the added cost of applying the test to all agreements regardless of income levels, the fact that the $75,000 limit should mean that most AWAs are subject to the fairness test still leaves others high and dry. To apply it to all agreements should therefore not involve any substantial increase in the cost of applying the test—and with 600 inspectors employed to administer the fairness test, I think the government has allocated adequate resources to do so. With that, I commend these amendments to the House.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the wish of the House, the question that amendments (1) to (10) moved by the member for Calare be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all the non-government amendments.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (line 22),

        omit “fair compensation”

        substitute “full compensation”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (line 28),

        omit “fair compensation”

        substitute “full compensation”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 1 and 2),

        omit “fair compensation”

        substitute “full compensation”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 11 and 12),

        omit “fair compensation”

        substitute “full compensation”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 22 and 23),

        omit “fair compensation”

        substitute “full compensation”.

I have a series of amendments that I will move in the House today. It is my intention to speak very briefly to each of them in the hope that that will give some time for other members of the House to make a contribution. Amendments (1) to (5) are very clear in their impact. This bill is supposed to be about a fairness test, it is supposed to be about providing compensation to people if they lose conditions that they otherwise would have enjoyed. The terminology used in the bill is that people get fair compensation but nowhere is ‘fair’ defined. We say if people are going to lose conditions they should get full compensation. So these amendments replace the word ‘fair’ with the word ‘full’. Why would the government be opposed to someone who gives up penalty rates, for example, getting full compensation? Why would the government be opposed to someone who gives up overtime pay or some other term of condition getting full compensation? These amendments will make sure that, even under this sham legislation, at least there is some prospect of a worker getting full compensation rather than fair compensation. I commend these amendments to the House.

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

In accordance with the wish of the House, the question that opposition amendments (1) to (5) be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all the non-government amendments.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (6), (7) and (11) to (14) as circulated in my name:

(6)    Schedule 1, after item 8, page 33 (after line 26), insert:

8A Subsection 354(4) (after paragraph (i) of the definition of protected allowable award matters)

insert:

     (ia)   notice periods for the notification of working days or hours and variations to those days or hours;

(7)    Schedule 1, after item 8, page 33 (after line 26), insert:

8B Subsection 354(4) (after paragraph (i) of the definition of protected allowable award matters)

Insert:

       (ib)    redundancy pay;

(11)  Schedule 1, after item 39, page 40 (after line 20), insert:

39A Subclause 25A(4) of Schedule 8 (after paragraph (i) of the definition of protected allowable award matters)

insert:

       (ia)    notice periods for the notification of working days or hours and variations to those days or hours;

(12)  Schedule 1, after item 39, page 40 (after line 20), insert:

39B Subclause 25A(4) of Schedule 8 (after paragraph (i) of the definition of protected allowable award matters)

insert:

       (ib)    redundancy pay;

(13)  Schedule 1, after item 41, page 42 (after line 31), insert:

41A Subclause 52(3) of Schedule 8 (after paragraph (h) of the definition of protected allowable award matters)

insert:

      (ha)    notice periods for the notification of working days or hours and variations to those days or hours;

(14)  Schedule 1, after item 41, page 42 (after line 31), insert:

41B Subclause 52(3) of Schedule 8 (after paragraph (h) of the definition of protected allowable award matters)

insert:

             (hb)         redundancy pay;

To very briefly explain these amendments: as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is at the table, would be aware, under the Howard government laws there are things that are called protected award conditions. These are the things supposedly protected by law which of course have been taken away from so many workers. These are the things that are supposed to be looked at for the government’s new test. They are just the award conditions that are protected award conditions. As we have made the point in question time over a number of days, there are conditions of great importance to people that are not currently so-called protected award conditions. One of those that is of great importance to working men and women who need to balance up family obligations is getting appropriate notice of a change of shift or roster and not being able to have that condition stripped away from them.

A second very important condition for working people is an entitlement to redundancy pay, which has always been in our system something that applied to bigger businesses, not small businesses. That entitlement to redundancy pay is to help people to have something to live on in the case of the loss of a job until they can get the next job.

The force of these amendments would be to make those two conditions effectively protected award conditions under the Howard government regime, which means they would need to be weighed in the balance for this so-called test that the government is introducing. I commend these amendments to the House.

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

In accordance with the wish of the House, the question that opposition amendments (6), (7) and (11) to (14) be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all the non-government amendments.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (8) and (9) as circulated in my name:

(8)    Schedule 1, after item 22, page 36 (after line 3), insert:

22A At the end of section 613

Add:

        (2)    Notwithstanding the other factors set out in this section or a provision in a workplace agreement or an award, an employee who wishes to attend to religious activities on Good Friday shall be taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on Good Friday.

(9)    Schedule 1, after item 22, page 36 (after line 3), insert:

22B At the end of section 613

Add:

        (3)    Notwithstanding the other factors set out in this section or a provision in a workplace agreement or an award, an employee who wishes to attend to religious activities on Christmas Day shall be taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on Christmas Day.

These amendments deal with the very important question for many in our community of the way in which they can observe Good Friday and Christmas Day. This is about real protections for public holidays. The current Work Choices act says, on the one hand, that employees are entitled to a day off on public holidays. Then, in the very next section, it says that an employer may request that an employee work on a public holiday. But later, in section 612(3), the legislation says that an employee can refuse the request where they have reasonable grounds to do so. The force of these amendments is to clarify what are reasonable grounds for someone to decline to work on Good Friday or Christmas Day. The clarification is that it is reasonable grounds to decline to work on those very important religious holidays when the employee wishes to attend to religious obligations or other commitments on that day.

This could not be more simple. This is to apply to people who understand, and feel within their personal lives, the significance of the Christian tradition of Good Friday and Christmas Day and, because of the significance of those days to them as a matter of personal faith, they seek to have those days not working ones so that they could attend religious observances on those days, attending a religious observance on Good Friday—the day that Christ was crucified, and one of the most sacred days in the Christian calendar—and to mark the birth of Jesus Christ, also one of the most sacred days in the Christian calendar. This would enable people who wish to attend religious observances on those days to have that as a reasonable ground to decline to work on those days.

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

In accordance with the wish of the House, the question that opposition amendments (8) and (9) be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all the non-government amendments.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (10) as circulated in my name:

(10)  Schedule 1, after item 22, page 36 (after line 3), insert:

22C At the end of section 613

Add:

        (3)    Notwithstanding the other factors set out in this section or a provision in a workplace agreement or an award, an employee who wishes to attend commemorative events on Anzac Day, or to support the attendance of a member of the employee’s family at commemorative events on Anzac Day, shall be taken to have reasonable grounds for refusing a request to work on Anzac Day.

This amendment is in comparable form to the amendments that I have just moved but it deals with the question of Anzac Day. As the Prime Minister and other members of the government have had cause to observe, Anzac Day is probably the most significant national date on the calendar each year when we truly come together in the spirit of being Australians. Of course we have Australia Day as well, but Anzac Day has grown to have a particular status, a particular significance, for all Australians. Very hearteningly, it has come to have a particular significance for young Australians. I am one who is very optimistic that, even with the passing of the generations, Anzac Day will continue to be a very important day in the life of this nation each and every year.

On that basis, the force of this amendment is to give an additional protection to those who seek to have Anzac Day off. Once again, this is exposed to the same scheme in the Work Choices legislation that says, on the one hand, employees are entitled to a day off on public holidays and then, in the next section, says that an employer may request an employee to work on a public holiday. There is in section 612(3) of the legislation the ability for the employee to refuse a request where they have reasonable grounds to do so. The force of this amendment is that it will clarify that it is a reasonable ground if an employee is committed to attending Anzac Day events or supporting the attendance of a family member at Anzac Day events. That ought not to be too much to ask for working Australians on our most important day of national events in the calendar.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the wish of the House, the question that opposition amendment (10) be agreed to is deferred until after debate has concluded on all the non-government amendments.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and with the concerns we have about the failure of the government to define what fairness means, given the significant expenditure of taxpayers’ money already outlaid on advertisements prior to the law being enacted and introduced into this House. It would seem fitting that, if the government wants to continue to discuss fairness, that particular definition should be properly articulated in the legislation. Labor’s amendment seeks to do that and therefore, if there is any sincerity in the intentions of the government to mitigate the adverse effects of Work Choices legislation by the enactment of this bill, they will attend to the problems by acceding to the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I go to the particular amendment that would provide for a more definitive definition on reasonable grounds to refuse. Clearly, the government—at least, rhetorically—is suggesting that there is a very important aspect in the way in which public holidays apply: that employees should have the capacity to request that they have the day off. It also allows, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has already indicated, that there would be reasonable grounds to refuse. But what are reasonable grounds and what are grounds for employees to take such sacred days off? Expressly articulating a definition that would ensure that employees that requested, for example, Good Friday and Christmas Day off to attend important religious obligations is one such example which should allow employees that entitlement.

With respect to the amendment that would provide for the day off to commemorate Anzac Day, I have already come across an example in your state, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, in the electorate of Bass—I cannot disclose the person involved because they are fearful of the consequences. A young person requested the day off so he could attend the Anzac Day dawn service in Launceston and wear his grandfather’s medals. He was refused that right and told by his employer that he would have to come in and would not be able to attend that particular service. The employee had to make a difficult decision about whether he wanted to continue employment with that particular employer or do what he has done most years—that is, wear his grandfather’s medals at an Anzac Day event. We think this amendment would provide the opportunity for that individual and everyone in his position to march if they take that very important national day seriously and wish to commemorate the fallen and those who sacrificed so much for this country.

I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how important Anzac Day is to you. I have listened to the comments you have made over the years in this place with respect to that very important public holiday but, unfortunately, the legislation proposed today is not providing sufficient grounds for employees to commemorate such an important day. The amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if acceded to by the government, would allow such capacity for employees in that circumstance to do what should be allowed. For that reason, I support the amendment and we ask the government to do likewise.

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

On the face of it, when you listen to the member for Gorton and the member for Lalor speak on these amendments, it gives the impression that it is all very much above board and why shouldn’t we agree to this amendment? This is cute politics by the Labor Party. It gets back to a policy position they announced in their document, Forward with fairness. In that document, on page 14, it says that under Labor’s system:

... bargaining participants will be free to reach agreement on whatever matters suit them.

This is what this is about. You can couch it in terms of public holidays, shift rosters and Anzac Days. Even the member for Lalor has admitted that in the current legislation it already says that employees can agree to decline a request by an employer, whether it be the RSL asking them to work on Anzac Day so its members can participate in the activities of the RSL. It is already in the legislation, so why are we having this amendment? Why is the member for Lalor introducing this? Because there are a lot of other things that they would like to introduce through the ability to insert other issues.

We know that one of those things that they want to introduce goes all the way back to bargaining fees, which would be introduced by the Australian Labor Party. We all know the importance of Good Friday and Christmas Day. We do not need to come in here and receive a homily from the member for Lalor. Of course we all appreciate what Christmas Day is all about. We also appreciate that members of the public would like to spend time with their families, yet for decades a lot of people have worked on Christmas Day and Good Friday. There is the ability in this legislation for employees to decline those requests.

The member for Lalor, Ms Julia Gillard, talked about the entitlement to redundancy pay. She failed in her very brief moment at the dispatch box—maybe she will come back and explain it a little later on—how to actually define ‘full compensation’. What does it actually mean that someone will be fully compensated? Does the member for Lalor also have a plan through these amendments to introduce all those other things which Labor want to see inserted in agreements such as deductions from employees’ pay or wages for union fees?

Do Labor also want to introduce a restriction on the use of contractors and labour hire arrangements? The member for Gorton knows about that debate. He and I were members of a parliamentary committee that looked at those issues, and I know the views of the Labor Party on contractors and labour hire arrangements. Do they want to introduce in these agreements paid leave to attend union training and union meetings? I would like to know what else they actually want to see included in these agreements, apart from these nice things such as Christmas Day, Good Friday and Anzac Day that all of us would certainly agree to.

The fact is that, if we start going down this path that the member for Lalor wants us to go down, we do not know what else is going to be in there. But we do know that there is a plan by the member for Lalor to introduce such things as bargaining fees into the legislation. Why is that? Because in 2004 the High Court held that bargaining service fees were not matters pertaining to the employment relationship and therefore they could not be included in pre-reform agreements on that basis. The member for Lalor is now trying to insert it into the legislation itself, and that is one of the reasons why her amendments will be rejected by those on this side. On page 14 of Forward with fairness, the Labor Party said:

Under Labor’s system, bargaining parties will be free to reach agreement on whatever matters suit them.

When the member for Lalor went on Neil Mitchell’s program on 1 May 2007, he asked:

... are we getting to the essence of this now then that bargaining fees are banned at the moment ... under your system they wouldn’t be banned, they’d be there for negotiation. Is that a fair comment?

The member for Lalor replied, ‘Yes’. Then, of course, we had a reversal. Therefore, things like union preference clauses in hiring or promotion will be lawful. (Time expired)

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because of the guillotine on this debate, I regret that I will not have the opportunity to contribute more substantively, but I want to make a couple of quick remarks in relation to the amendments and the substance of the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007.

I remember the Work Choices legislation being introduced with a fanfare of paid publicity saying that the entitlements of persons under it would be protected by law. They were not. The consequence of this is that this government have suffered a sledging of a monumental nature in the public debate, and rightly so. Now, in another act of scheming and deception, they have put forward trivial amounts of legislation under an equally misleading title to provide some limited cover for legislation that still remains fundamentally unfair.

The government seek to put into the mouth of the member for Lalor, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, an intention to add further matters in relation to the matters that she proposes by way of amendments. The truth is that the opposition does not propose further minor amendments; it proposes to tear up this legislation and to replace it completely. That is what it will do when it forms government upon the realisation that the community will not accept this kind of deceit, this kind of wrongful taking of its own taxpayers’ money to fund something that is so adverse to the community interest.

The member for Calare has quite rightly raised what must be a continuing issue of substance for those who have entered into AWAs on the conditions that were not protected by law, that are unfair and that will remain under this so-called fairness test unaffected by these changes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a whole series of very sensible, practical improvements that could be made to this trivial ameliorative measure, and they are being rejected. Instead, the government purports to speak for the opposition in relation to its intent. The intent is straightforward, it has been well expressed, but the larger intent of the opposition is to form government and to replace these laws with laws that are balanced and fair for the whole of the community.

I have some words of advice in relation to this general debate: there is no prospect whatsoever that this government will get any traction with the Australian public as long as it sits on government benches acting as if it is in the opposition. Every speech that now is given by the other side imputes to the Labor Party motives which it does not hold. Every speech that is given by the government is a sledge against the opposition. Every speech is an act of desperation rather than an articulation of the values and principles that underlie its actions, because the values and principles that underlie its actions are actually values and principles that are being rejected by the Australian public—and rightly so.

The opposition support this measure, not because they regard it as a fairness measure but because they do recognise that at least some people who have been treated unfairly will be able to get some amelioration of the disadvantage that this government has imposed on them. It does redress to a slight degree some of the lies and deceit that were peddled by paid advertising saying that these entitlements were protected by law when they were not. It allows the opposition to articulate some of the larger vision that it will put into effect when it forms government if the Australian public give it the respect, which it hopes to earn through the articulation of the principles that have underpinned the work of the leader, deputy leader and the shadow ministry in putting forward large initiatives to the Australian public not just in industrial relations but across the board. This government simply sounds tired. It sounds unable to articulate its own rationale for its existence. It can only attack the opposition. The opposition has now become the leader of debate across a whole range of issues and, sadly, this debate has reflected that very great reality.

Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally reject the amendment put forward by the member for Lalor suggesting that the government’s industrial relations laws are extreme. In fact, our legislation is quite moderate, forward thinking and progressive. As members opposite would be aware, the union movement have dominated the Labor Party since 1891 under the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine. On that occasion, the union members said to the Labor Party, ‘You’ll do what we tell you.’ In the famous event of the 36 faceless men with Calwell and Menzies, we well recall that the federal executive of the union movement told the Labor Party what to do.

In 2007 we have a similar situation. We have Dean Mighell of the Electrical Trades Union—we talked about him today; Greg Combet, ACTU secretary; Sharan Burrow, ACTU president; Bill Shorten; Dougie Cameron, senator elect; and Richard Marles, branch stacker extraordinaire and assistant secretary of the ACTU, and the member for Throsby has a hotline as well to these union personnel. They all tell the Labor Party what to do. We have the unions writing industrial relations policy for the Labor Party. The member for Lalor, the shadow spokesman, wrote their policy and the Christian socialist Leader of the Opposition said he was not familiar with the details. We have these amendments drafted in a similar fashion.

We have a situation with the unions, which are dominating the policy, where union membership has been in decline. The union members are voting with their feet. In 1976, 51 per cent of the workforce was in the union movement. By 1994, 40 per cent of the workforce was unionised. By 2006, we had 22 per cent of the workforce unionised and it was only 16 per cent in the private sector. Why are the workers leaving the unions? I would suggest to you it is that they have jobs and higher pay under the Howard government. Yet we have a situation here in the parliament where the union movement, with such small representation, dominates the policy. These so-called extreme laws have created 326,000 new jobs since March 2006 and 85 per cent of them are full-time jobs.

A further amendment suggests that the law has caused the pay and conditions of individuals on Australian workplace agreements to be cut. The evidence is that wages have increased and members opposite are aware of that. Wages under AWAs are nine per cent higher than under collective agreements and 94 per cent higher than under the award rates. What is the Labor Party standing for in this legislation? Are they returning to the situation where there were 4,000 awards? Do they want that complexity in the industrial relations system? In their policy, Fair Work Australia, which is a bit unclear, are they suggesting one-stop shops in the suburbs? That is unconstitutional, it is quite clear they would be run by union officials and it would be unfair. Where does that leave the employers and workers in Australia? The policy also recommends bargaining fees. Dean Mighell is delighted with this bargaining fee proposal because that will mean union fees for his union. Bargaining fees force compulsory unionism on Australian workers.

As far as I can ascertain that is the position of the shadow minister and those opposite. They are in a position where they are returning to 1904 arbitration commission type attitudes. They want to throw out the current legislation lock, stock and barrel; the shadow minister said that here in the parliament today. They want turn the clock back to the 19th century. They have no position. They have some amendments here that try to reinforce their position. They agree with the bill, they are going to vote for it and yet they have these amendments here which, if you read the fine detail, really mean nothing. They are turning the future into the past. They have no proposition. The amendments stand for nothing. They stand condemned.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendments but I want to make a comment on the debate so far on this substantive bill before the House. I have to say there is a lot of rhetoric. The reason that this matter has been brought forward is not that people have lost money; they knew that was going to occur. They knew that when the legislation was passed. The reason this is coming before us is the polls. This mob opposite are going to do anything, spend as much as it takes, to get them across the line at the next election. I would like to put a bit of reality into this debate if I could.

Back in September of last year, in a question without notice, I raised with the Prime Minister the situation faced by employees of Lipa Pharmaceuticals in my electorate, a major pharmaceutical company that employs about 300 people in Minto. I asked him if he was aware that these people were on a collective agreement but had been presented with an Australian workplace agreement that sought to cut weekend penalty rates, cut public holiday pay, remove protected award conditions and also allow the employer the unilateral ability to change shift and rostering arrangements with no increase in pay—and that agreement would last for five years. Understandably, the Prime Minister probably thought, ‘Well, I can’t trust these Labor members because they’ll tell me anything,’ so he did not want to answer. So I popped up and I gave him a copy of the certified agreement, which was still current, and the AWA. I tried to get an answer from the Prime Minister as to why someone would actually sign this when they still had an agreement, one that still had time to run, yet they had been asked to sign an AWA. By the way, the employee who came to see me about that made it very clear why that was the case. He said, ‘They put it to me that if I didn’t sign it there were plenty of other people who would.’

These are not just constituents out there. They are not just voters we are trying to woo before the next election. These are people I go to the football with on weekends. My kids go to school with their kids. I have been in that area for 30 years, and these are families that have grown up there. They are concerned about Lipa Pharmaceuticals. They are not in trades which are in demand in the energy industry; they are not going to leave this job and go to a mine. These people need the jobs that they have. They are low-skilled workers; they know that they are not in much of a position to bargain. And I know for a fact that there is no union on that site—but there are 300 people so perhaps there should be. But they were put in the position where they either signed the contract or they did not have a job.

Reynaldo Cortez is one of those people. He has got five kids; his wife stays home and minds them. He signed the agreement, but when he came to my office to talk about it he was in tears. He said to me, and this was actually reported in the local newspaper: ‘I’ve got five kids and my wife takes care of my kids.’ He said that, when confronted with the agreement: ‘I felt sick. I couldn’t sleep because of what was going on. I didn’t like to sign it, but what could I do?’ I have now had in excess of 20 people who work for that company come to visit my office. Invariably, the arrangement is that they meet me on a weekend because they do not want to be seen coming to the office of Chris Hayes. Because I do actually raise these things, they fear that if they are seen coming to my office they will get the sack.

Do not forget, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when all of this fairness stuff comes into play this employer does not actually have to give them a reason for dismissal. It can be just ‘operational reasons’. These are not lawyers. They certainly do not have the ability to go and pay for a lawyer. As I said, they are not on a unionised site. They are very concerned for themselves and their families. They are concerned for their welfare. That man who came to see me lost $200 a week. That was in the documentation I provided to the Prime Minister. I know that, when the former minister, Mr Andrews, who is also sitting at the table, visited my electorate and this was raised with him when he was out at Ingleburn, he took the easy line and said: ‘Well, this is sub judice. This is subject to an investigation.’ Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, there has never been—(Time expired)

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity to summarise the government’s position in relation to these various amendments. Before I do that, I want to thank the people in the department who have been involved in the work on the fairness test: Finn Pratt, John Kovacic and Natalie James; Jenny Burnett from Attorney-General’s; and also David Bohn from DEWR. I also take the opportunity to thank my staff, Richard Clancy and Rod Whithear, and Jamie Briggs in the Prime Minister’s office, who undertook a hell of a lot of work in preparing this fairness test.

The government will not be accepting the member for Calare’s proposed amendments. Firstly, in relation to amending Australian workplace agreements made between 27 March and midnight on 6 May, our view is that it would create significant legal risk to disturb existing contracts—contracts that were obviously willingly agreed to by employers and employees. It might even create significant compensation issues under the Constitution for disturbance of property. Not even the Labor Party, I understand, are supporting this amendment requiring retrospectivity. Secondly, in relation to the salary limit of $75,000, it is meant to be a safety net. It would be very rare to see an award that pays more than $75,000 as a base salary. It is not meant to apply to higher income earners; it is meant to apply to those who are most vulnerable. It covers over 90 per cent of workers on AWAs. Also, from an administrative perspective, the cost of retrospectivity—and I know Independents do not worry about this—in looking at over 300,000 contracts would be literally half a billion to a billion dollars, if not more. So it is totally unrealistic and we will not be accepting it.

The government will not be accepting the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The first set of amendments would replace ‘fair compensation’ with ‘full compensation’, but we do not know what ‘full compensation’ is because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not provided us with a definition. It certainly sounds as though it is totally inflexible, and one of the things we pride ourselves on is that flexibility is not thrown out the back door when it comes to Australian workplace agreements and collective agreements under the Work Choices policy. So we will not be accepting those amendments. Secondly, in relation to redundancy pay and changes of hours under protected award conditions, we view these proposals as inflexible. Currently, protected award conditions strike about the right balance. The government have already preserved redundancy entitlements and agreements for up to 12 months after an agreement is terminated.

In relation to public holidays, I noted that the amendments proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition protect, in her view, Good Friday but not Easter Sunday. What about Easter Sunday for all those Catholics and Christians out there who believe Easter Sunday is of equal importance to Good Friday? We think Palm Sunday is very also important, and other religious festivals—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Andrews interjecting

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, there are other religions—Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam—and they are all very important. That is why we believe that the current arrangements do provide appropriate protections, particularly in relation to Anzac Day, and when it comes to family arrangements and attending ceremonies and so on, of course people would get the day off. This is just a political stunt. We are not interested in that.

Finally, I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum for the government amendments previously circulated. We strongly support the government amendments, obviously, as they are ours.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just witnessed an extraordinary statement from the minister that they would not support Good Friday as a reasonable ground for getting a day off because we did not put in Easter Sunday. Have you ever heard anything as astonishing as that? In my electorate of Rankin, Greenbank RSL has 85,000 members. They will be very interested to know that the government opposes Labor’s position that participating in an Anzac Day ceremony is a reasonable ground for not working on Anzac Day. This is amazing. If the government had any goodwill at all, it would have acknowledged today that this is a very sensible amendment and would have supported the Labor amendment. I would not have even minded if the government had said: ‘We’ll move the amendment. Having been given the idea by Labor, we’ll move the amendment.’ I am sure the member for Lalor and Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have said: ‘What’s really important is that the amendment is passed. If you want to move it, that’s okay.’ Instead, the government has said, ‘No, we’re not going to provide an assurance that attending an Anzac Day ceremony is a reasonable basis for having that day off.’ All of the members of the Greenbank RSL and all of the members of RSLs all around Australia will be shocked to know that the government is treating Anzac Day with such contempt. I am disappointed. The minister went to the Kokoda Trail—and good on him for doing that—but he really needs to follow that action up and give Australians that basic fundamental right in relation to Anzac Day. He has not done so and RSL members and leaders around the country tonight will be shaking their heads when they hear this broadcast and when they find out what has happened in the parliament tonight.

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What worries me about the opposition’s proposed amendments and indeed their industrial relations policy generally—that is, if you can come to grips with what they actually stand for at the moment because there have been so many changes—is that their position is a threat to the jobs growth and the extraordinarily low levels of unemployment that we have had over the past few years. Ten years ago when we introduced the first round of our industrial relations changes, Labor said that it would lead to mass unemployment. What we have had in fact over the last 10 years is the generation of two million jobs. We have the lowest unemployment in 33 years and unemployment is down to 4.4 per cent.

What Labor are proposing will threaten the high level of jobs growth and return Australia to higher levels of unemployment. There are two areas that worry me about Labor’s position. Firstly, Labor’s threat to restore pattern bargaining—it is in their industrial relations policy. Despite their obfuscation and denials, Labor’s return to pattern bargaining will be a problem. It is in their industrial relations policy on pages 13 and 14:

... multi employer collective bargaining for low paid employees ...

It says that Labor recognises that employers and employees or unions may also want to negotiate consistent terms and conditions across an industry—I could go and on. The return to pattern bargaining will undermine the ability in a full labour market to generate productivity growth and wages growth in those industries that are not experiencing growth without adding to inflationary pressures across the economy.

One of the features of the flexibility that AWAs have introduced and allowed has been that individual businesses that are generating productivity rises can afford high pay rises without this affecting industries that are not experiencing high productivity rises. By reintroducing pattern bargaining, Labor would put pressure right across an industry and on low-productivity businesses, those businesses that are struggling, to replicate the pay rises in businesses where productivity gains are being achieved. Business therefore can only respond in one of two ways. Firstly, they would put off workers, leading to unemployment, because they cannot pay the higher wages that another business can afford to pay, or, secondly, they would have to put their prices up to cover the higher pay that they cannot afford; therefore, inflation rises. We have had this in times past: in a tight labour market and an over-regulated labour market, prices rise. Therefore, there is upward pressure on interest rates and there is a slowdown in economic growth and higher unemployment. Labor’s desire to return to a pattern bargaining regime in a tight labour market will inevitably lead to higher prices, inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment.

The second aspect of Labor’s policy that will threaten jobs growth is their intention to restore the unfair dismissal laws—those unfair dismissal laws that cost jobs. Every member of this House, even those on the other side in their candid moments, know many small businesses in their electorates that have been willing to put on workers over the last year because they are no longer afraid of being taken to the cleaners due to Labor’s job-destroying unfair dismissal laws. I could quote example after example from my electorate of employers who are now putting on employees—not only are they putting on employees, they are putting employees into permanent jobs. They no longer have to protect themselves with casual employment so that they can dismiss an unsuitable, unsatisfactory or unproductive employee or a troublemaking employee. They are giving them permanent jobs because they are no longer worried about the unfair dismissal laws. Labor’s intention to restore the unfair dismissal laws will discourage small businesses from giving employees full-time jobs and taking on apprentices, and will lead to a casualisation of the labour force. The runs are on the board. This government have been delivering jobs growth right across the board. Labor’s proposals will threaten that jobs growth and we will see a rise in unemployment. That is the last thing that people in this country want.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few seconds that remain could I urge government members to consider our amendments and support them to ensure people get full compensation, to ensure that there are some protections for changes—getting notice of changes to rosters and shifts, and redundancy—and for better protections of Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day. If the government think there should be a longer list of public holidays better protected then we are happy to vote for it, but before the House today we have better protections for some very significant days for members of the Australian community and there is no reason why anyone should vote against those better protections.

In the course of votes this evening, there will be a vote on the amendments moved by the member for Calare. Could I indicate that the opposition will not be voting for those amendments. They have within them making the government’s new test retrospective. Whilst we can understand the sentiment of the member for Calare, we do not believe it is appropriate to try and retrospectively apply this new test to the many thousands of Australian workplace agreements that have been entered into in the last 13 months. The government has two amendments itself—one on bargaining fees and one on mending a problem with federal registration of unions, mainly the police union—and we will support both of those.

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

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day, the time for consideration of the bill has expired. I therefore put the question that amendments (1) to (10) moved by the member for Calare be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

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

As there are fewer than five members on the side of the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I would also like to remind members at this stage that there will be a series of divisions. I now put the question that opposition amendments (1) to (5) be agreed to.

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

I now put the question that opposition amendments (6), (7) and (11) to (14) be agreed to.

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

I now put the question that opposition amendments (8) and (9) be agreed to.

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

I now put the question that opposition amendment (10) be agreed to.