Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to give my contribution on the Fair Work Bill 2008, I give my strong support to it. When I stood for election in 2007, I pledged to do a number of things. I pledged to work as part of the Rudd Labor team to get rid of the extreme, unfair, ideologically driven workplace laws that gave rise to Work Choices. With that pledge, I published a list of priorities to Page that included polices and programs in the areas of health and education, which are clear priorities in Page; reform of the workplace relations system; and getting rid of John Howard’s extreme, unfair, ideologically driven workplace laws, and particularly Work Choices. It is as important to traverse the system as it was to locate the Fair Work Bill 2008 within the framework of industrial relations that the Australian people wanted.

The Fair Work Bill 2008 does not just get rid of Work Choices and AWAs and all of the nasties of the industrial relations system; it also modernises and revolutionises the industrial relations system—the system that was created at the federal level in 1901 and that has served us reasonably well but was moribund. It was not until the Hawke-Keating years, when enterprise bargaining was introduced, that we started to see some modernisation, some changes and some balance coming into the system.

Part of the plan that I pledged to work with at the election was Kevin Rudd’s plan, a plan for Australia’s future. It was a plan that would deliver, among other things, balance and fairness in the workplace, balance and fairness that John Howard had thrown out. But he was not alone. He had a lot of help. He had the help of the Liberal Party and the National Party. National Party members where I live were telling us that Work Choices and AWAs were good for us. In country New South Wales and in country Australia they were saying that somehow Work Choices and AWAs, which stripped rights away from workers and away from working families, were good for us. They were saying that something that took money out of our pay packet, that lessened our pay, was good for us; that something that took away conditions was good for us; and that something that gave us very fractured working hours was good for us. A woman came to me and said that under Work Choices she had been told that her working hours would be split, with just a couple of hours in between. She would have to work early in the morning, go home for an hour, go back at lunch time, have another hour off and then go back again in the evening. She had family responsibilities. And we were told that this was good for us.

Fair Work Australia gives expression to Labor’s plan, Forward with Fairness. It is important to note that the Australian people, and that includes the people in Page, very firmly and decisively said: ‘No more. We don’t want Work Choices; we don’t want this workplace relations system—we reject it.’ It was not about the fair go. We calculated that about $2 billion was spent on political advertising, telling us how good this system was. If one has to spend that much money to tell us that something is good for us then certainly that suggests that maybe there is something wrong. Who can forget the advertisements? We saw the ads on TV, particularly in the lead-up to the election campaign. Again, those ads were telling us that Work Choices was good for us.

I would like to talk a little bit more about Work Choices and then Forward with Fairness, our plan, which is reflected in the bill. I also want to make a contribution on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In so doing I note that the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and the member for Fremantle both talked about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and, no, we have not caucused, but I think it says something about our shared professional backgrounds in particular areas of international affairs and human rights.

The Work Choices laws cut away the safety net. They slashed wages and they trashed vital conditions and protections. They were workplace laws that removed job security for working families and made it harder for them to spend time together. They were workplace laws that shredded the notion of fairness in the workplace. They were workplace laws that, quite frankly, were an assault on and an affront to the Australian value of a fair go for all. I refrain from saying that they were un-Australian. I heard that phrase used for a long time, particularly under the Howard-Costello government. I heard the previous Prime Minister say it. People used to talk about things that were un-Australian. It was something that was used to silence people. So it is not a phrase that I use, but I can clearly say that Work Choices was an absolute affront to the Australian value of a fair go.

When the Work Choices laws came into effect we heard about people getting sacked for no good reason, about people being forced onto individual contracts which cut their pay, erased their entitlements and forced them to work weekends and public holidays when they had not done so in the past. Australia knew that that was clearly the wrong direction in which to head. At the time, the previous government’s own figures on AWAs—and they were the centrepiece of the workplace laws—showed that 100 per cent of those agreements, all of them, took away at least one protected award condition. Sixty-three per cent of all agreements removed penalty rates; 52 per cent removed shiftwork loading; and 46 per cent cut public holiday payments. How can that be fair? How can a system like that be fair? What Forward with Fairness said—and it is worth repeating some of it here, because it is reflected in the Fair Work Bill—is that it would provide a new single national system and for the private sector it would provide a new independent umpire in Fair Work Australia, and it clearly does that.

I think we inherited six or seven agencies under the current industrial relations system. All of those will be coalesced into Fair Work Australia. Forward with Fairness said it would abolish AWAs, and that is what we did. Forward with Fairness also said that there would be a transition period, and that is clearly what we have been working through in this place. Forward with Fairness said that in abolishing AWAs it would provide for modern, simple awards with decent minimum wages, overtime and penalty rates; it would provide for individual flexibility by allowing certain common-law agreements in addition to new flexibility clauses; it would give support to families by providing parents with unpaid leave when a child was born; and it would protect workers from being unfairly sacked, while providing businesses with the confidence that unfair dismissal claims would be resolved quickly, including special arrangements for small business. When I stand here and talk in support of Fair Work Australia, all of those things have been done, all of those things have been delivered and all of those things are reflected in the bill.

Now I will turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is apt because we are discussing its 60th anniversary. It was an issue before the House. That debate is now completed and I would now like to speak about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its resonance with this bill. I will look first at article 16 of the UDHR. Article 16 talks about the family being the natural and fundamental group unit of society and about it being entitled to protection by society and the state. Article 25(2), which sits squarely with that, says:

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.

In looking at the resonance of the UDHR with this bill you see that it is actually reflected in the 10 National Employment Standards. The UDHR speaks to every standard, and what is reflected in the UDHR is fairness. That is clearly in the 10 national standards. I will turn to them in a minute. Article 20 of the UDHR says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

And article 23(4) says:

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

That is the language of the document at the time. So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks about the freedom of association—the freedom of association in your workplace, whatever grouping that be. It also says that people have the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. That is what it is for. We hear a lot from the other side. They do not seem to like trade unions. That seems to be the collective view. They somehow do not recognise that unions are there to protect the interests of workers and working families. Article 23 begins:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work ...

It goes on:

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity ...

Article 24 says:

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25 says:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family ...

What I would say about that is that we have had the debate in this place with speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister gave a statement on the 60th anniversary of the UDHR, giving strong support to it. The Leader of the Opposition did the same. These things are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These things are contained in the Fair Work Bill, in the 10 National Employment Standards. With those comments I commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have great pleasure in rising today to speak on the Fair Work Bill 2008. This is the legislation through which we are delivering a fair and balanced workplace relations system—the one we promised to the Australian people at last year’s election. We know that, undeniably, the Australian people found Work Choices abhorrent. I surveyed my electorate in late 2006 and found that 84 per cent of the people had an extreme dislike of Work Choices. A year later, in November 2007, the people of Newcastle and the people of Australia rejected Work Choices and the Howard government at the ballot box. And now, in November 2008, we are debating the legislation that implements the will of people on this issue. That is a pretty good feeling, and it reflects the success of our democracy in promoting balanced and sensible governance and in representing the will of the people and allowing them to shape the future of this nation. The Australian people knew Work Choices was extreme and mean spirited, and they responded accordingly.

Labor promised a simpler and fairer system to ensure that Australia is competitive and prosperous while maintaining workplace rights and minimum standards—the standards of dignity and decency. Firstly, we have delivered simplicity. I think anyone who has looked at the legislation would absolutely congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on giving us just over 600 pages—not 1,500 pages as we saw in Work Choices. It is 600 pages that people can understand. It is a synthesis of such complex issues into a very readable piece of legislation. In that way it certainly reduces the compliance burden on business. The legislation brings together the functions of seven existing agencies under the roof of the new Fair Work Australia. I have to say that that is a really efficient model. These functions include setting and adjusting the minimum wage; varying awards; ensuring good-faith bargaining; facilitating multi-employer bargaining for the low paid; dealing with industrial action; approving agreements; and resolving disputes and unfair dismissal matters.

Fair Work Australia will have a full suite of dispute resolution powers and will be able to exercise those powers at the request of just one party—and that is the way it should be. So we will no longer see disputes dragged out because one party refuses to come to the mediation table. There is no benefit to the productivity of the nation from that. Productivity flows from harmonious workplaces where both employers and employees know and respect each other’s rights and responsibilities. We did see some disputes during the time of Work Choices, and there were some in my electorate that showed obstinacy and no goodwill or good faith. As I said, productivity flows from harmonious workplaces, where both employers and employees know and respect each other’s rights and responsibilities. The fair work divisions of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court will also operate as the independent judicial arm of Fair Work Australia and will include a new low-cost, informal procedure for small claims of up to $20,000—a great innovation.

Labor made an election commitment to establish a Fair Work Australia office in my electorate of Newcastle. I look forward to this facility being able to provide local services to workers and businesses in my region and to young people particularly having easy access. Fair Work Australia will be complemented by the Fair Work Ombudsman, which will promote cooperative workplace relations and compliance by providing education, assistance and advice. From 31 January 2010, a specialist building and construction division within Fair Work Australia will replace the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The Hon. Murray Wilcox QC will report by the end of March 2009 on matters relating to the new specialist division. This is in line with the commitment Labor made in good faith at the 2007 election, and we will meet that commitment. Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the coercive powers of the ABCC, as has a Senate committee and a Federal Court judge. We will consider the Wilcox and Senate committee recommendations thoroughly and I am sure we will get the best outcome for workers and the industry.

The second major part of the Fair Work Bill that I wish to refer to is the establishment of a comprehensive safety net of employment conditions. There are 10 National Employment Standards that will apply to all employees and cannot be overridden, and there will be modern awards that provide conditions over a further 10 subject matters. The 10 National Employment Standards cover: maximum weekly hours of work; requests for flexible working arrangements; parental leave and related entitlements; annual leave; personal, carers and compassionate leave; community service leave; long service leave; public holidays; notice of termination and redundancy pay; and fair work information statements—all matters that people in the workforce are intimately involved in and concerned about.

The 10 matters included in new, modern awards are: minimum wages and classifications; types of employment; arrangements for when work is performed; overtime rates; penalty rates; annualised wage or salary arrangements; allowances; leave related matters; superannuation; and procedures for consultation, representation and dispute settlement. Any agreement made must leave every employee better off overall than the applicable award. An agreement cannot remove National Employment Standards conditions and wages cannot fall below minimum wages at any time. That is a far cry from the Work Choices era, with the AWAs of that time being notorious for ripping away so called ‘protected’ conditions. We have ensured there will be no new AWAs and that there is a genuine safety net that can never again be ripped out from under Australian workers. This is a key part of the new, fair enterprise bargaining framework established within this legislation and it goes to the heart of our new, fair and balanced workplace relations system.

Enterprise bargaining that drives productivity is good for workers and employers and it is certainly the best way forward for the economy. It is also inherently democratic. If a majority of employees want to bargain collectively, they can. If they want to be represented by a union, they can be. All parties must bargain in good faith, and arbitration is available if they do not bargain in good faith. All enterprise agreements must be approved by Fair Work Australia to ensure there is genuine agreement and that they do not contain any unlawful content or contravene the National Employment Standards. Fair Work Australia will apply the better off overall test, or the BOOT test, to ensure that each employee covered by the agreement is better off overall in comparison to the relevant modern award. It will also be able to facilitate multiple-employer bargaining for low-paid workers and those who have not historically had access to the benefits of collective bargaining. If all of this sounds very fair and reasonable, that is because it is very fair, very reasonable and certainly very inclusive. It is about responding to the Australian people and restoring the rights that they lost under Work Choices.

Another right that was dumped under Work Choices was the right to protection from unfair dismissal. In the survey that I did in Newcastle, the fear of unfair dismissal was the single biggest concern expressed about Work Choices, and it is easy to see why. Firstly, Work Choices removed unfair dismissal protection for workers in workplaces of fewer than 100 people. Secondly, there was the infamous ‘operational reasons’ clause that pretty much allowed any excuse to give someone the sack. By contrast, the Fair Work Bill provides unfair dismissal protection for the vast majority of workers. To get the balance right, a worker must have been employed for 12 months in a small business of fewer than 15 workers or for six months in a larger business before an unfair dismissal claim can be made. The legislation provides for faster, fairer and less formal processes to resolve unfair dismissal claims. Again, conciliation, mediation and cooperation are the hallmarks of the Fair Work Bill.

This legislation recognises the legitimate and important role that unions play in our society and it ensures that employees have the right to be represented by a union. I am delighted to see that they will be assured of a continuing role. They helped to create this great country, including the freedoms and the rights that we enjoy. This is about the basic right to freedom of association that Work Choices attacked and almost destroyed. The bill restores a fair balance between the right of workers to meet with their union and the right of employers to run their businesses without interference. It recognises the important advocacy and representational role that unions play in our society, particularly for the most vulnerable workers: women, young people, migrants and newly-arrived people in this country.

I think that there is a great entrepreneurial power in the collective. We have seen that already in the historic role played by some unions in establishing benefits like superannuation and health funds for workers and their families. I would think that if we get the balance right in this legislation we will see that that approach can be expanded by unions rather than there being an emphasis on past industrial action. Protected industrial action will continue to be available only during negotiations for an enterprise agreement and only when participants are genuinely trying to reach agreement. Secret ballots to authorise industrial action will be retained. Action in pursuit of matters that do not pertain to the employment relationship will not be protected action. Once again, this is the type of balanced approach that Australian people want. They voted for the pendulum to be swung back to the middle and we are delivering that. With this legislation we are restoring the safety net that Work Choices ripped away. We are rejuvenating the award system that Work Choices left to rot. We are restoring the right to collective bargaining that Work Choices effectively undermined. We are driving a stake through the unfair AWAs that were at the very heart of Work Choices. We are restoring the unfair dismissal protections that Work Choices destroyed. We are allowing the unions to play the legitimate role that they simply could not undertake with Work Choices. We are putting back in the game the independent umpire that Work Choices sidelined. And we are creating a truly national system for the private sector through cooperation that Work Choices failed to achieve through coecion. We are restoring to the people of Australia a country that they can be proud of: the land of the fair go, the land of equality and opportunity. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.