Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Bill 2008 is among the most important pieces of legislation that will pass by the nation’s 42nd Parliament. The fair work bill establishes a new Australian industrial relations system for the 21st century, a system founded on the great Australian belief in the fair go, a system that protects working families in difficult times with a genuine safety net and a system designed for an economy that creates the jobs of the future and competes on the basis of skills, innovation and productivity.

Throughout Australia’s history one of our greatest achievements is that our nation has provided ordinary working people with a decent standard of living and has sought to avoid the extreme inequalities found in many other nations, yet we have done that mostly without swinging to the other extreme of overregulation. On workplace relations, we are neither America nor Europe. We fashion something else in this land, a uniquely Australian balance. We believe in rewarding hard work and enterprise. We also believe in providing a strong safety net for everyone. Our greatest achievement as a nation is not the triumphs of a few but the prosperity of the many. Our great achievement is that ordinary working people have for generations been able to build a good life in Australia, have a good job with decent pay and conditions, buy a home of their own and build a secure life for themselves and their family. Few other nations have made this kind of dream a reality for ordinary working people, as many who have migrated to our shores will often say. Australia was among the first countries to implement the eight-hour day, to introduce workers compensation laws and to guarantee a living wage for working people. Australia was a pioneer in establishing a legal framework of awards and arbitration that ensured that working people would share in the nation’s growing prosperity. In more recent years Australia has been a world leader in creating a universal scheme of superannuation savings to help give Australian’s financial security in their retirement years.

All this progress has been the result of progressive legislation passed by Commonwealth and state parliaments. With each step along the way this progressive legislation has invariably been opposed by the rolling constellation of conservative forces represented today by those who sit opposite in this chamber. The bill we debate today will finally bury the Work Choices legislation introduced in 2005 by the Howard government. Work Choices was an attempt to tear up the social contract that has helped shape Australia’s history. There was no mention of Work Choices before the 2004 election, but suddenly it became the central ideological obsession for the government’s fourth term once they had won control of the Senate. Just consider all the huge long-term challenges facing Australia at the time: building world-class education, building advanced infrastructure, investing in our hospitals, fixing our Federation, tackling the huge challenges of climate change and tackling the huge challenges of the national water crisis. These challenges were all alive in the year 2005. All these challenges were ignored in 2005, because the Liberals chose to give their highest priority to extreme industrial relations laws—Liberal party ideology unplugged. They got control of the Senate and the nation got to see upfront and personal the real agenda of the Liberal Party at work and at play—the agenda they now seek to conceal from the Australian public. But if they return to the Treasury benches they will return to this agenda as surely as night follows day.

Work Choices was shaped by an extreme ideology: in its simplest terms, the right to dictate employment terms to their workers unconditionally. It is a simple and similar ideology to the one we have seen at work in the extreme capitalism that has been behind the global financial crisis. This form of extremism has no place in Australia. Work Choices sought to rip away from the safety net the basic rights achieved by successive generations of Australian workers: reasonable working hours, penalty rates, overtime pay, protection from unfair dismissal and the right to representation by a union. The current Leader of the Opposition welcomed the Work Choices legislation, saying on 2 November 2005 when it was introduced to parliament that it represented ‘the single most important reform to workplace relations in any of our lifetimes’. The Leader of the Opposition now tells us that Work Choices is dead. I would simply say this: would the real Malcolm Turnbull please stand up—the one who believed in the Work Choices three years ago and voted for it on 27 separate occasions or the one who today says he no longer believes in Work Choices. The reality of his party’s views is reflected in their contribution to the debate on this legislation. The Australian people are not fools. They can spot pretence at a thousand paces. To pretend that the Liberal Party is not ideologically committed to Work Choices is like pretending that the barmy army is going to be back in Australia for next year’s Ashes series.

The reality of most workplaces and something that conservatives have refused to address for 100 years is that employers and employees simply do not have anywhere near to equal bargaining power. A single mum cannot negotiate on equal terms with a telecommunications company. A teenager cannot negotiate on equal terms with a fast-food outlet. A middle-aged tradesman cannot negotiate on equal terms with a national hardware chain. That is why Labor has fought for more than 100 years for decent industrial relations laws for the century that has passed. Yet the 2005 Work Choices legislation reversed this progress, abolishing the no disadvantage test and allowing employers to strip away basic entitlements without any compensation. This was all with the Leader of the Opposition’s strong support—he who says that Work Choices is now dead.

Even after the Australian people rejected Work Choices at last year’s election, the opposition leader said on 10 February this year:

… the major innovation in respect to individual agreements in the WorkChoices legislation was to remove the no-disadvantage test.

Once again, will the real Malcolm Turnbull please stand up: the Malcolm Turnbull who in February praised the major innovation of Work Choices as the abolition of the no disadvantage test but made it possible for people to be put on AWAs to be worse off or the Malcolm Turnbull who nine months later says that he no longer believes in Work Choices, he no longer believes in AWAs.

As I said in a debate in this chamber yesterday, it is important for people in this parliament to stand up for consistency of principle. The member for Bradfield, the previous Leader of the Opposition, has unequivocally stated his support for Work Choices. It reflects his position as a principled conservative. We disagree with the view point, but at least he has the courage to own the viewpoint. The current occupant of the office of Leader of the Opposition believes he can fool the Australian people that he has simply walked away from that to which he was ideologically and personally committed only nine months ago. I think the contrast is clear for all to see.

The facts are these. Eighty-nine per cent of AWAs took away at least one award condition, according to analysis of 1,700 AWAs by the previous government’s Workplace Authority in 2006—an analysis that they never made public. This report also showed that in two-thirds of those contracts the AWAs removed incentive based payments and bonuses, penalty rates and shiftwork loadings. Yet the Liberal Party month after month denied AWAs were undermining Australians’ pay and conditions. Just months before last year’s election they rushed out the so-called fairness test. It was advertised before it had even been developed or legislated. It was an attempt to put some eleventh hour political window-dressing over the top of Work Choices. All politics; no principle and no policy. We see the same script repeated today: the Liberal Party pretending to be something that they are not.

Apart from still being bad for employees, the so-called fairness test created a nightmare for employers. Its introduction caused an almost total breakdown of the industrial relations system, with the backlog of agreements blowing out to 150,000 by the time the Liberals lost office in November last year. The Liberals say they are the friends of small business; the Liberals say they are the friends of business. Some 150,000 applications by business for registration were simply allowed to swing in the breeze as they sought to engage in this five-minute-to-midnight exercise of political camouflage and cover to suggest that they had somehow become worker sensitive. Pigs might fly!

In abolishing Work Choices, the Fair Work Bill establishes a simpler, fairer and more balanced industrial relations system. Even today the Liberal Party still does not know where it stands. The Leader of the Opposition says that he will not oppose the Fair Work Bill, yet he also says that he will not support it. I find that a curious position. His party’s position on individual contracts changes from one day to the next. They say that they will vote for this legislation that rules out statutory individual contracts then they say they want to resurrect the same type of individual contracts. Senior Liberal members of the opposition, such as Senator Minchin, believe Work Choices never went far enough.

In contrast to the Liberal Party, we in the ALP know where we stand on the rights of working families. We took the Forward with Fairness policy to the last election and now we are delivering on it. The Fair Work Bill is the result of months of exhaustive consultation with business, unions and workplace experts. I pay tribute to the enormous efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister, her department and the many organisations that have put so much time and effort into developing this bill. I note as well the very positive feedback we have received from many business organisations, including the Australian Industry Group, whose CEO said last week:

The Government have listened hard to employers … I want to congratulate the Government on a very good process.

               …            …            …

… I think of all the processes I’ve gone through on industrial relations reform—and I’ve been through a few—this would have to be the best one.

The government do not adopt an adversarial approach to industrial relations, as the previous government did. We believe in harmonious workplace relations that maximise productivity. The Fair Work Bill builds on the historic shift to enterprise bargaining made by a previous Labor government in the early 1990s. The bill gives all employees the right to good faith collective bargaining where a majority want it and requires that employees are made better off overall by all agreements.

Within this framework the bill also fosters substantial individual flexibility. Employees earning above around $100,000 will be free to agree their own pay and conditions without reference to awards. All modern awards will include a flexibility term, identifying the award terms that can be varied through an individual flexibility arrangement. Underpinning the system is a program of modern, simplified industrial awards and underpinning these in turn are 10 minimum National Employment Standards.

The principle at work in this reform is to provide proper protection for the weak and support for the strong to negotiate maximum flexibility. That is called doing it the Australian way. It is based on the enduring Australian value of a fair go for all, but it is designed for the competitive global economy of the 21st century as well, by maximising productivity growth through the full range of employment options. Enterprise agreements, common-law agreements, modern awards—each of these options is capable of maximising workplace flexibility and productivity.

The previous government oversaw a long period of declining productivity growth in the Australian economy. Productivity growth averaged 3.3 per cent in the mid-1990s, following the wide-ranging productivity reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments, in particular the shift to enterprise bargaining. In contrast, under the Work Choices regime annual productivity growth averaged less than one per cent. Far from boosting productivity and flexibility, the previous government’s Work Choices regime entangled businesses in an unprecedented level of red tape and bureaucracy.

Under the Fair Work Bill we will reduce the previous government’s seven workplace agencies to a one-stop shop—Fair Work Australia. We have reduced the 1½ thousand pages of Work Choices to 600 pages in the Fair Work Bill and we are working with the states to bring all private sector employees into a single national industrial relations system. The new industrial relations system is an important part of the Australian government’s comprehensive productivity reform agenda, alongside an education revolution across early childhood, schools, vocational programs and universities; investment in nation-building infrastructure for the 21st century; and the COAG reform agenda embracing a program of business deregulation across 27 areas of legislation to help build a seamless national economy. Each of these initiatives is critical to our long-term objective of raising productivity and building long-term prosperity for all Australians.

This is a proud moment for all members of the Australian Labor Party as we deliver for Australia’s working families. With this legislation, Work Choices will be dead and buried. The resurrection of Work Choices is only possible if the Liberal Party returns to government, because, whatever they may say now, Work Choices remains etched deep in the Liberal Party’s soul.

The Fair Work Bill will build a system designed to give everyone a fair go at work so that all Australians can have a decent set of minimum protections, where hard work is rewarded, where businesses and employees can design workplace arrangements that suit their own enterprises. I am proud to join my colleagues in addressing the parliament on this important legislation. I am proud to lead a government that stands in the great tradition of a fair go for all Australians. I am proud that with this legislation we are building a new system for a new century.

In this challenge that we face in the years ahead, as the global financial crisis wreaks its toll across the global economy and that is in turn visited upon the Australian economy as well, one enduring principle must stand by us all—that is, we are all in this together. Business, unions, employers and employees—we are all in this together. If we fight this thing together, we will survive this thing together. If we unite and are not divided, we will see Australia through, and see Australia through in stronger shape. I would say that this bill reflects that very Australian spirit, and with that remark I commend the bill to the House.

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

It is a matter of public record that on 24 November last year the former government was defeated and the Rudd government was elected to office. As part of the manifesto of the Rudd government there was the former opposition’s approach to industrial relations. One of the key reasons that the former government lost office was a very effective campaign against the Work Choices legislation maintained by the trade union movement, who are being rewarded in this bill, and also by the then opposition, now the government. Unlike some other honourable members, particularly those on the other side of the House, I do not share the enthusiasm for this legislation, the Fair Work Bill 2008. In fact, I believe that the legislation before the House does not deserve the enthusiasm that some members have shown for it.

In a situation where we have a global economic crisis, we find that legislation before the chamber seeking to implement the government’s mandate will bring about increased power for trade unions and increased business costs and will cost jobs. Only yesterday in the parliament the opposition asked the Deputy Prime Minister how many people would lose their jobs by Christmas. The Deputy Prime Minister, besides bagging out the honourable member who asked the question, simply did not have an answer, other than to say that the government conceded that there would be some loss of employment.

There has been debate over the years on what a mandate actually means. ‘Mandate’ is a word that has grown up and has been discussed, and in fact there was a rather interesting research paper by JR Nethercote published on 11 May 1999 which dealt with, among other things, the analysis, meaning and character of mandate doctrine. We admit that the government, by being elected, does have a mandate to change industrial relations laws, but among the findings in this particular paper was:

• mandate is a political idea in two senses. Mandate doctrine derives from the politics of responsible government on a democratic basis. It does not derive from constitutional, legal or parliamentary prescription.

Also, the paper found:

… mandate doctrine has been mainly developed by politicians in political forums rather than by philosophers or academics …

It then goes on to say, as one of its findings:

• there is considerable debate about what a mandate is. Does it apply to the entire platform (or manifesto) of a winning party only to the more important item or to matters mainly the subject of contention during a campaign? And can others, apart from winners, claim to have a mandate? Likewise, there is considerable debate about how a mandate may be discerned—seats in a legislature, seats in which chamber of a legislature or the voting strengths which lie behind respective party strengths in parliament? And what of voting strength not translated into representation?

Academic analysis of the concept of mandate is divided. It has been said by some that the legitimacy of democratic politics requires that, as much as possible, commitments made on the hustings should be honoured once the election result is settled, recognising that there are circumstances where a mandate will lose its relevance or be overtaken by events.

We concede that the government has a mandate. In 1998, however, we went to the Australian people seeking support as part of our election campaign for the introduction of a goods and services tax. Despite the fact that we received a mandate from the Australian people, that mandate was not respected by the then opposition. In fact, we had to come to arrangements with the Australian Democrats to bring in a second-best—probably an 85 per cent second-best—goods and services policy that was not as simple as it otherwise would have been, because the Australian Labor Party would not respect the mandate given to us at the election. The opposition will not oppose this legislation, as has been indicated by the Leader of the Opposition, because, unlike the Labor Party, the opposition has determined that it will respect the mandate given to the government by the Australian people.

That brings me to the other point that emanates from some of the findings in the paper on mandate by the Australian Parliamentary Library. It says that a mandate is there ‘recognising that there are circumstances where a mandate will lose its relevance or be overtaken by events’. My argument is that the global economic crisis has brought about a new world order that should be factored into the situation by the government when considering whether industrial relations reforms should be brought about at this time.

There was a very interesting article by the Editor-at-Large of the Australian, Paul Kelly, published on Saturday, 29 November, under the headline ‘IR reforms asking for trouble’. I will quote from that article. I would commend honourable members read the article. It was a very thoughtful and objective insight into the concerns and problems which this legislation will bring to Australia. Mr Kelly commences by saying:

Kevin Rudd shouts from the rooftops each day that the global financial crisis has changed the world, but the Prime Minister does not believe his own words. A bizarre fate has befallen Australia. At the precise time it faces a global crisis, a business downturn and rising unemployment, the Rudd Government is recasting workplace relations to increase trade union powers, inhibit employment and impose new costs on employers.

He goes on to say that normally this would defy logic and ‘it would seem the essence of irresponsibility’, but highlights the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister, contrary to what you would expect, has been seen as a ‘political hero’. He then goes on to say:

It is as though Australia’s workplace relations system exists in some interterrestrial immunity from the rest of the economic world.

The global crisis means everything has changed: the budget goes into deficit—

as admitted by the Prime Minister recently—

fiscal stimulus replaces fiscal restraint, the Reserve Bank does a volte-face and begins to slash interest rates, and the Government guarantees deposits as Rudd declares the crisis is “sweeping across the world”.

But—

and this is one of the key points that Mr Kelly makes—

standing immovable is Labor’s support for greater trade union power, more costly restrictions on employers, a greater role for the revamped industrial relations commission, an effective end to individual statutory contracts, a revival of arbitration, and a sharp weakening of direct employer and non-union employee bargaining.

What he really says is that the government may well have had a mandate for the legislation but ought to have considered the matter more carefully and ought to not have effectively brought in the legislation at this time. He makes a number of key points. I believe that, although the government may well have a mandate, the government ought to have considered the situation in the light of what has changed since that fateful day of 24 November, when the people of Australia voted for a new government.

Paul Kelly concludes his article by saying:

In the interim, the Government will be responsible for all the consequences of imposing on Australia at a time of unusual financial crisis a workplace relations system that means higher costs, a weaker labour market, a more interventionist umpire and a union movement with greater legal powers.

It is not too late for the Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider this matter. It might be a case of good politics but bad policy. Having said that, the opposition has indicated that it will not oppose the legislation, although in the Senate obviously consideration will be given to certain aspects of the legislation, particularly the aspects which go beyond the government’s promise at the 2007 election.

This legislation does not simply bury Work Choices; it also undoes some of the Howard government’s reforms of 1996. It actually reaches back to the past and guts some of the reforms brought in by the Keating government, way back in 1993. It will be interesting to know what the Deputy Prime Minister will be saying to the people cast on the employment scrapheap—the people who lose their jobs before Christmas and the people who lose their jobs after Christmas simply because the Deputy Prime Minister has become a victim of ideology and has forgotten to consider the interests of people and the rights of working Australians to actually keep work.

The legislation also includes some compulsory arbitration, it also enables pattern bargaining and it also expands the right of entry of unions. This is inconsistent with what the Deputy Prime Minister has said on many occasions. Time precludes me giving all of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would like to quote a couple of them. In a speech to the National Press Club on 30 May 2007, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

The fourth untruth is that Labor’s new body, Fair Work Australia, will re-empower ‘union bosses’ and reintroduce both ‘compulsory arbitration’ and ‘centralized wage fixation’.

The Deputy Prime Minister, on 3 September of the same year, was asked this question by a journalist during a doorstop interview:

JOURNALIST: Julia just another question, it’s probably not of interest to other people. Under what circumstances would compulsory arbitration be treated under the Labor system?

JULIA: As we’ve said in our policy, that there are a very limited number of circumstances where you need the industrial umpire to step in and resolve a dispute. It’s the sort of safety valve that has always been in our industrial relations system. If you have got a dispute that is threatening safety or health or the national economy, an intractable dispute that is causing significant hard, they are they kind of circumstances in which the industrial umpire would be able to resolve the dispute. But in the ordinary course people who are collectively bargaining at their enterprise level, all of that bargaining will happen at the enterprise level, they will either strike an agreement or not strike an agreement.

The Deputy Prime Minister has said that there will not be pattern bargaining. That is what she said in response to a question on 1 May 2007 at a doorstop interview. She said:

That is completely untrue. Pattern bargaining in the sense of having industry wide action is unlawful under Labor’s Forward with Fairness plans.

A little later, on 30 May, she said:

Pattern bargaining is a term used to describe bargaining across the whole industry. That’s not what Labor’s policy is about.

As an aside, I read, as you probably did, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Australian yesterday a report stating:

FORMER union chief Greg Combet successfully pushed for compulsory arbitration powers—

and the article is headlined ‘Combet responsible for pattern bargaining clause’.

The government likes to dress up this legislation as being the implementation of an election promise. It certainly is, to an extent. The opposition respects the fact that the government does have a mandate. From a personal point of view, I have problems with the legislation. From a personal point of view, I believe that, even if one concedes that the government has a mandate, things have so dramatically changed in the 12 months since the election that the legislation ought not to be considered at all at this time. The opposition does respect a mandate, unlike the way that the now government—the then opposition—refused to accept the Howard government’s mandate for a goods and services tax. So in this particular matter, I suppose you could say that the now opposition is a lot more politically ethical than the Australian Labor Party has been over the years.

In the time remaining to me, I want to point out that we did not have a desperate situation in industrial relations in Australia prior to the introduction of the Fair Work Bill and that the Howard-Costello government has much to be proud of. We left a very proud legacy. The Howard government has a record of getting people into jobs. In fact, close to two million jobs were created. Most of those were permanent jobs and some were temporary jobs, and we also had a record without peer of keeping people in work. We created and managed prosperity and growth, and sadly that has already been squandered by the current government. The opposition is gravely concerned about the impact of the bill before the House on jobs and job creation, particularly given these difficult, trying and uncertain economic times.

The union movement in Australia ran a very strong campaign during the last election opposing the Work Choices legislation. I must say that I did not like the ads very much, but they were certainly effective. The fact that the government is now the government and the opposition is now the opposition is testimony I suppose to the skills of the former union chief, now a member of parliament, Mr Combet, and to the government’s tacticians more generally. However, having said that, the fact that the legislation has been brought in and is now seeking to change things so dramatically does not mean that the outcome will be what the Australian community thought it was voting for. The Australian community at the last election did vote for change in industrial relations, but they did not vote for higher unemployment, more trade union power or increased costs of business. The best way to create jobs in Australia is to have an economy where business is able to grow and invest. At a time when some 20 per cent of companies could potentially be in trouble in the not too distant future, one would think the last thing any government would want to do would be to make it more difficult for those businesses to continue.

The union movement’s campaign has been very strongly rewarded. In this legislation, the union is being given access to workplaces and access to non-union-member records. This is certainly a breach of privacy but what the government is clearly doing is repaying a debt. I would like to refer the parliament to an article in the Herald Sun:

UNIONS will gain access to thousands of new workplaces—even those where they have no members—under … industrial changes …

I would also like to draw the House’s attention to the provisions which the article in the Herald Sun points out. It says:

And workers will be able to take bosses to court over something as trivial as a roster change, with possible fines of up to $30,000.

The article goes on to say:

Employers fear unions, with their dwindling memberships, will enjoy new influence—

on the basis of this legislation and I suppose on the basis of the fact that we now have a Labor government.

This legislation is all about reward and payback. The Australian people might think that they are in fact receiving, in legislation, something they voted for, but the Australian people voted for the change of government not being aware of the impending economic crisis and not being aware, in my view, of the adverse impacts which we will see flowing from this legislation. Governments ought to be flexible, and the government, having got a mandate on 24 November 2007, ought to have looked at its mandate and at the dire economic crisis confronting the world and posed the question to itself whether it was appropriate for this draconian legislation before the chamber today to actually proceed at this time. I am pleased to have made this contribution. I make it clear I am anything but enthusiastic about the provisions of this bill. I accept the government has a mandate, but I believe the government ought not—(Time expired)

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with great excitement to support the Fair Work Bill 2008 and I have to say that the previous speaker, the member for Fisher, has demonstrated what I and many people on the side of the chamber have feared, and that is that the opposition cannot give up their support for Work Choices. Given the opportunity at some time in the future, they will attempt to reimpose that workplace scheme again, much to the fear of many of the people in my constituency and Australia-wide.

This bill gives greater fairness and balance to the relationship between workers and employers. One of the keys to happiness for the vast majority of Australians is dignity and fairness in the workplace. This is what this bill delivers. Earlier this year, this Labor government abolished Work Choices and AWAs. This was the delivery of the most essential commitment made to the working families of Australia during the 2007 election. During the last election Work Choices was the issue of the greatest concern for my constituents on the Central Coast of New South Wales. They were distressed by the reductions it caused in their wages and conditions of work, they were frightened by the fact it put their jobs at risk and they were upset that it undermined the quality of life of their families. When I travelled around the Central Coast in the lead-up to the election, the single biggest issue raised by the people I spoke to was the terrible effect of AWAs and their fear of Work Choices. This scourge on the community was created by the last coalition government. The worst aspect of Work Choices was the effect it had on the lowest paid in the community and those who were most vulnerable.

I spoke to many people who had been personally affected by Work Choices: it had made their lives harder. I spoke to a woman who worked in aged care and who had done so for over a decade. She was asked to sign an AWA that meant that she could be asked to travel to a different nursing home at a day’s notice. She had only ever worked in a nursing home in Gosford and she could be required to travel to Newcastle or Sydney’s North Shore. She signed because she needed to keep her job. I spoke to a man who worked in a laundry and was forced to sign an AWA that meant that his wages were cut by one-third and that he received no penalty loading. He was worried that his family would not be able to pay their bills. I spoke to a 17-year-old who went to apply for a job in retail and was asked to sign an AWA on the spot. If he did not, he would not get the job, which paid $7 an hour and provided him with no breaks, not even a toilet break, unless he worked for more than five hours.

This was swept away by the election of the Rudd Labor government and the destruction of AWAs and the passing of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. This abolished AWAs and started the process towards modern awards. The Fair Work Australia Bill before us implements the balance of the Forward with Fairness policy adopted by the Australian people with the election of the Labor government last year. This creates a balance between a fair workplace and the imperatives of maintaining employment and economic activity in the face of a deteriorating world economy. This bill is simpler, half the number of pages of Work Choices, and simple in its jurisdiction, relying on the corporations power of the Constitution rather than conciliation and arbitration. It enshrines the right to collective bargaining, which is a core imperative for workers effectively negotiating with employers. It is simpler in its use of 10 legislated National Employment Standards and the modern awards are reviewed comprehensively every four years and have wage reviews each year. It is simpler with one stream of agreement making, which applies a no disadvantage test to all agreements to ensure workers do not lose any conditions that they already have. It is also fairer with bargaining in good faith, enforceable by Fair Work Australia, and the entitlements of all workers to be represented by their union if they so choose.

I am particularly pleased that the bill provides for arbitration in the case of low-paid workers where agreement was unable to be reached. This can occur where the parties have genuinely tried to reach agreement and the determination will promote productivity and efficiency in the enterprise. These low-paid workers often have particular difficulty in genuinely negotiating with their employers due to their often less secure employment, lower skill level and reduced resources. This bill recognises their circumstances and makes particular provision to assist them in securing a fair wage and work conditions. I am also particularly pleased to see enhanced access to workplaces being provided by the bill to ensure workers can freely choose to join a union of their calling and that errors in payments, health and safety issues and other matters that detrimentally affect workers can be identified and rectified.

I am also glad that the bill puts in place a more balanced and reasonable scheme in relation to unfair dismissal. It removes the previous government’s absurd definition of ‘small business’ as a business with fewer than 100 employees and also the ‘genuine operational reasons’ provision that undermined the integrity of the workers’ protections. Under this bill there is a reasonable balance of the genuine protection of workers and the need of businesses to employ staff suitable for their business. Under this bill small businesses with fewer than 15 employees have 12 months to assess the suitability of their staff and larger businesses have six months to make that assessment. More particularly, the bill makes it simpler and more transparent for both parties by providing a fair, reasonable and simple code for dismissal that ensures that any action for unfair dismissal would not succeed if the code has been complied with. I wish to particularly thank the Your Rights at Work group on the Central Coast and mention in particular Mary Yaegar who was unendingly hardworking and sunny in her outlook.

The fairness of Australia’s industrial relations system is at the core of what this government is as a Labor government. The aspiration of the Australian people for a fair industrial system goes to the core of why the Rudd Labor government was elected. I am confident that this bill contains a system both fairer and simpler than the Work Choices fiasco rejected by the Australian community. I am also confident that the working families of Australia will be satisfied with the choice they have made. I commend the bill to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too am proud to stand here today, one year after Labor promised to repeal the Howard government’s extreme and unfair industrial relations system. The Fair Work Bill 2008 completely replaces the Workplace Relations Act, including the former Howard government’s extreme and complex Work Choices amendments. After the introduction of Work Choices, Australians were being exploited at work like they never had been before. This was not the sort of Australia I would want for anybody trying to make his or her way in the world. The Liberal coalition government under Howard let the people down.

It is ironic that at a time when families were doing it extremely tough—tougher than they had for years, in a time when families needed every available cent to make ends meet—the Howard government introduced legislation that made it that much harder for families to make ends meet. People were having to make their mortgage repayments when the Howard government made losing your job easier and took away any recourse. Work Choices made providing for your family that much more precarious. With financial stresses, people’s focus can become narrower and the bonds in families can become strained. A government should help secure family life, not rip it apart, and that is what the former government’s bill did. I will just let you know about some stories and the impact of Work Choices on some of my constituents.

The first story that comes to mind is that during the actual campaign, when I was doorknocking in the suburb of Glengowrie in my electorate, I doorknocked on a house and an elderly woman answered the door. I recall giving her my card and telling her who I was. Her immediate response was, ‘I am not a Labor voter.’ I thanked her for her time and continued on my way. But just as I was leaving she called out and said, ‘But I am voting for you this time.’ When I stopped in my steps, turned around and continued the discussion, I asked her why that was. She said that the government had gone too far with industrial relations and she proceeded to tell me her grandson’s story. He had worked at one of the big supermarket outlets and she told me how at the age of 17 he had been given notice after working there for 12 months without any reason or rhyme. When he tried to have his position resecured and wanted to know why and what had happened, they just said that under the new laws they were able to do it.

That elderly woman in her mid-80s voted Labor for the very first time, and at that point I thought that there were hundreds of others just like this woman out there not only in my electorate but also across Australia. And there certainly were, because there were many stories of the impact that Work Choices had on some of my constituents, and I will read some of them out.

There was Mark, a metal worker, aged 41. Mark had two negative experiences of AWAs. Firstly, there were penalties. He was required to work 12-hour shifts with one 20-minute break. There were no penalty rates for overtime or weekend work. He voluntarily left the position, as it was unfair. Then there was the matter of unfair dismissal. He was recruited for a full-time permanent position and worked for 2½ weeks as such and was then dismissed with the employer stating there was ‘no demand’. There was no other explanation.

Another story concerned Sandra, a supermarket display refurbisher. Sandra accessed short-term, three-month contracts via a labour hire firm. She was offered a job and was instructed to sign the contract. There were no questions asked. Some contracts entitled her to a $16 per hour flat rate even for work performed on Sunday evenings through to Monday mornings when the stores had to be open.

Another example was Peter. Peter came and spoke to me about his son. His son had worked for seven years from the age of 15 for a company involved in the wine industry. He was a full-time, permanent employee and over the years he undertook training for viticulture work and other duties. He was a model employee, as evidenced by the fact that he was the recipient of Employee of the Year. On the day that Work Choices came into force, his son was sacked without explanation.

Emily is another example. Emily was a cafe worker, aged 21. She was in receipt of award penalty rates et cetera while working at a particular cafe. One week prior to new management taking over on 1 July 2006 all casual staff were given contracts to sign consisting of no penalty rates whatsoever. The new owners expected weekends to be worked without penalties on the basis of employees’ loyalty to the company.

The Fair Work Bill 2008 delivers the government’s election promises as set out in the Forward with Fairness policy. This bill will ensure that Australia is competitive and prosperous without compromising workplace rights and guaranteed minimum standards. The Australian government is introducing a new system with fairer laws that balance the needs of employees, unions and employers. This is a system that ensures all employers and employees have access to transparent, clear and simple information on their rights and their responsibilities. That gives Australian employers confidence, with a simple, fair dismissal system for small businesses. This is a system that protects employees by (1) outlining clear minimum wages, (2) assisting low-paid and vulnerable employees and those without access to collective bargaining, and (3) ensuring employees’ freedom of association in the workplace—fundamental rights for all workers.

This bill delivers on the government’s commitment to establish a new, independent industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, for advice and support on all workplace relations issues and enforcement of legal entitlements. The Fair Work Bill 2008 will commence on 1 July 2009, following its passage through the parliament. Consistent with our election commitments and promises made during the campaign, the National Employment Standards and modern awards will commence on 1 January 2010. The Rudd Labor government ended the ability to make new Australian workplace agreements in March this year. The government’s new workplace relations system will provide a strong safety net that workers can rely on in good and in uncertain economic times. The government is getting rid of the extreme Work Choices laws, the laws firmly rejected by Australians at the last federal election.

The Australian government’s laws bring the workplace pendulum back to the middle—where it belongs and where Australians want it to be. These laws are good for employers, good for employees and good for the economy. In these troubled economic times, all Australians will benefit from certainty and from fair workplace relations laws. The social conscience of the next generation is such that they themselves call into question the policies of the past administration. The Howard government was totally out of step with Australians, and I know this because they told me, as I explained earlier in the story of my doorknocking experience with an elderly constituent who was voting for Labor for the very first time, specifically on Work Choices. The Australian people were concerned for their future job prospects and for those of their children and grandchildren. I am very pleased to say that Australians are now looking to the future, and with the Fair Work Bill 2008 they can have greater certainty and assurance about their futures and those of their children and grandchildren.

When I look at the previous government’s Work Choices bill—the unfair Work Choices bill—I think of my own story. I think of my parents, who migrated here more than 55 years ago with very little English, very few skills and very little education. They were therefore employed in some of the lowest paid jobs. My father worked on a production line at General Motors Holden and my mother worked as a domestic at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. But, even though they could not speak the language at the time, were unskilled and had no education, there was one certainty that they had. That certainty was that they would be treated equally on that factory floor or in the hospital where my mother worked. It did not matter where they came from or what colour their skin was; there was an agreement in place that they were allowed to be members of their union, therefore giving them the fundamental rights that allowed them to live with dignity. I too would like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the Deputy Prime Minister for the great and hard work that they have done with this legislation, which ensures that once again Australian workers will have a fair workplace and will be treated with dignity.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pride that I rise as a new Labor member of this parliament to support the Fair Work Bill 2008. In November 1907, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins handed down the Harvester decision, a decision that infused the concept of fairness into our industrial relations system. That was in November 1907. In November 2007, 100 years later almost to the day, the Australian people spoke, and they reaffirmed our commitment to fairness by throwing out a government that had ripped fairness away. They put a stake through the heart of Work Choices. This bill buries it, and we hope with all of our hearts that it buries it for good.

The Fair Work Bill restores fairness and balance to the workplace. It provides a safety net of 10 minimum employment standards that cannot be stripped away. It provides all employees with protection from unfair dismissal. It protects low-paid workers. It restores the right to good faith collective bargaining and it sets up an independent umpire to settle disputes. It has already achieved what some thought was impossible: the idea of winning the support of employers and employees. For this, Julia Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister, deserves a lot of credit. The bill is the result of 12 months of hard work, of consultation and of negotiation. For me, it demonstrates what real leadership is all about—bringing people together, not tearing them apart.

The idea of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work has been the cornerstone of our industrial relations system ever since Higgins’s judgement in 1907—that is, until Work Choices. Work Choices was one of the worst pieces of legislation that this parliament has ever introduced. It was bad law in good times and it is bad law in difficult economic times. That is why we have to get rid of it. For people in my electorate it meant that they were stripped of their wages and working conditions. I know this because that is what they told me on the streets of my electorate—in shopping centres, at railway stations and at street stalls all around my electorate during the election campaign. People told me horror stories of shift loading, leave loading, rest breaks and penalty rates all being ripped away. They told me of their fears for their children and their grandchildren. Their fears were well placed.

Work Choices and AWAs made a potent cocktail: 89 per cent of AWAs removed at least one protected award condition; 83 per cent excluded two or more; 52 per cent—that is every second AWA—excluded six or more protected award conditions; 45 per cent of AWAs provided between $1 and $29 per week below the required rate of pay for protected award conditions and 50 per cent provided for $50 to $199 a week less. That was the real effect of the Howard government’s industrial relations system, and all workers were affected.

But some were affected more than others—it hurt female workers in retail jobs really hard. People from a non-English-speaking background—and there are many of those in my electorate—suffered in particular. In my electorate of Blaxland they make up 14 per cent of the workforce—more than one in 10 workers speaks little or no English. It makes it pretty hard to negotiate with the boss. These workers were the worst affected by Work Choices.

There is an organisation in my electorate called Asian Women at Work, and they represent these workers. This year they released a book called Cries from the Workplace, which tells stories of women who were affected by Work Choices. I think their voices deserve to be heard in this debate. Here is just one: the story of a woman named Mary, a Chinese lady in her 40s who packages food for a living:

My pay and conditions are very low. I only get $11 an hour even though I start working at 3am in the morning. They are not paying the correct amount of tax for me. I don’t get sick pay or sick leave and I don’t get 4 weeks annual leave. I do get 9% superannuation. We don’t get overtime penalty rates when we do overtime.

Since Work Choices, our pay and conditions have gone to rock bottom. We used to get paid $16 an hour before Work Choices but after Work Choices we only get paid $11 an hour and without proper conditions or entitlements.

That is the human face of Work Choices. That is Mary’s story and that is why the Rudd Labor government is getting rid of Work Choices. What chance has someone like Mary got to negotiate with her boss to ensure that she gets a fair deal? People like Mary deserve a fair deal in the workplace. Every worker deserves a fair deal in the workplace. The people who are in this gallery today listening to this debate, and those hearing the broadcast on the radio, all deserve a fair deal in the workplace, and that is why this government is getting rid of Work Choices. That is why the people of Australia threw the Howard government out. I am sure the people in the gallery today will agree with me that it was the reason a lot of people around Australia changed their vote at the last election. People that had previously supported the Howard government changed their minds and voted for the Rudd Labor government because they were sick of these harsh, extreme and unfair industrial relations laws. These were laws that did things to people like Mary and to their grandchildren.

I know that the opposition are having a pretty hard time coming to terms with this bill. They know Work Choices was unpopular. They know what it did to the Australian people, but they just cannot let it go. In the last few months the Prime Minister has told us not to listen to what they say, but to look at what they do. Fair enough, but in this debate I think we have to turn it on its head—do not look at what they do, but at what they say, because in every single speech we have seen a salute to Work Choices and a criticism of this bill.

As usual, the member for Warringah came out punching and backed Work Choices. He said that industrial relations should involve ‘a certain amount of rough-and-tumble’ that may lead to ‘a bit of hurt and bruises’. This is from the man who said earlier this year that the Howard government would be remembered as the ‘golden age of compassion’.

The member for Mackellar suggested that the Fair Work Bill was ‘downright draconian’. Speech after speech said the same thing, quoting from the same articles and reading from the same song sheet: ‘Work Choices was good,’ they said, ‘This bill is bad.’ And then they told us they were going to vote for the bill anyway. But on Monday night came the bombshell: the member for Hume told us that he was going to vote against this bill. At last, a man with the courage of his convictions; someone prepared to match their words with their actions. I say: good on him. At least he stands up for what he believes in—not cowering behind the cloak of party room debate, not voting for the bill just to get it off the front pages of the newspapers and not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No, he revealed himself for the wolf that he truly is—for the wolves that they all are: people who believe in Work Choices. They believe in extreme industrial relations laws, writ large, because it is in their DNA. It is what the coalition believe in. If you have any doubt about what I say, let me point you to this statement:

You have to free the market to do its work and the cost of setting the clearing price—be it for labour, shares, home units or loaves of bread—be as low as possible…

This was not just any speaker in this parliament. It was not a member of the backbench, or a speech from the HR Nicholls Society, or a quote from Milton Friedman—it probably could have been—but it was the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. That is what they think—they equate workers, working people like the people in the gallery today, to loaves of bread. You have got to keep the cost of workers as low as possible. This explains the genesis of the legislation we are abolishing today. It explains the genesis of Work Choices because that is what they believe in.

We know they hate this legislation. That is why they fled the chamber as soon as the Deputy Prime Minister introduced this bill. It is why, if there is a question about it in question time today, you will see everyone on the front bench bury their heads in books, ashamed to even utter the words ‘Work Choices’. This is not a debate; it is a wake—it is a lament to times past, to a fallen hero. It is like burying a member of the family. As we bury Work Choices today, rest assured that those opposite are marking the spot. If given a chance they will be right back here to dig Work Choices up and give it the Frankenstein treatment.

I will end with this, a bit of free advice for the opposition: beware of the ghost of Harvester, beware of the ghost that claimed Stanley Bruce in 1929 and beware of the ghost that claimed John Howard last year. We are a fair country, we believe in fair laws and we believe in a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Anyone who forgets that will incur the wrath of the Australian people. That is why I support the Fair Work Bill, and so do all my colleagues here, who will be voting for it today. I commend the bill to the House.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Millions of Australians have waited for this day, after a decade of punishment and difficulty foisted upon them by the former Howard government and their industrial relations laws. It has been a long time coming for far too many Australians. It is important in this debate on the Fair Work Bill 2008 to recount the real-life situations that millions of Australian workers confronted over the last decade under the industrial laws of Peter Reith, John Howard and the member for North Sydney, when he became the minister responsible for industrial relations laws. I would like to recount a couple of incidents relating to people in my electorate who came to me over the course of the last couple of years. These examples are by no means exhaustive but they are illustrative of the problem.

A well-off senior executive in a finance corporation came to me when I had a mobile office in my electorate. He was not the sort of person that I would have thought would be inclined to support the Labor Party. After explaining where he worked and what he did, he explained to me that he was voting Labor because he had had enough of John Howard and the opposition’s extreme industrial relations laws. I wondered how they affected him. As we spoke he referred to the experience of his wife. His wife was a professional with a good job. She worked well and was highly regarded by her workmates. She fell pregnant, took leave and had a child. Her employer decided that they did not want to extend maternity leave to her, so they made the position redundant under the then provisions for retrenchment for operational reasons. A few weeks later they employed someone to take her place. There was no redundancy. This was a sham constructed simply to remove an employee because that employer had no desire to provide that worker with basic entitlements. It was enough for that family to say, ‘We’ve had enough.’

Another worker came along at an awards night—a defence medals ceremony that members of parliament on both sides will be familiar with. As this gentleman came in, he pulled me aside and started tearing strips off me and asking me what I was doing about the terrible industrial relations laws—Work Choices. I said: ‘Actually, I’m doing what I can to try to stop them. We are trying to get rid of them.’ After he had chewed my ear for a while, the ceremony went on. When it concluded he came up to me and apologised. He said: ‘I really shouldn’t have had a go at you on the way in. I am actually a naval officer. I am worried about my son. He is starting a trade and I know how he is being treated.’ These are real-life people who the Liberal Party ignored. They had an absolute blind spot, because whenever these cases were raised, whether in public or private, their standard response was that it was union propaganda and they would not listen to a word of it.

It was not just the workers of Australia who found these laws repugnant—or the parents or grandparents, many of whom, by the way, spent a lifetime fighting for conditions for their children only to see them stripped away by Peter Reith, John Howard and those presently sitting opposite. Employers also came up to me. We have all been out there as members of parliament with petitions on stalls. Usually you have to harass people to get them to come along and sign their name. I stood there with the petition on Your Rights at Work and there were queues of people lined up wanting to sign the petition. One of the people who signed, a lady at Ashgrove, made a comment about the impact it was having on workers. As she walked away she said: ‘I’m an employer; I employ people. I do not want to be forced to subject my workers to the lowest common denominator. I respect my workers and I want to reward them. These laws are making it harder for me to do that.’ I thank her.

I remember another employer who employed over 100 people and who invited me to talk to a gathering. They had an employer sponsored staff barbecue for the member for Oxley and me. We were invited to come along and say a few words. They had the same concerns. As a decent company employing around 100 to 150 people, they knew that under the Howard laws, the Liberal Party’s laws, they were being forced into the lowest common denominator, and they wanted none of it. They understood the importance of a dedicated, committed workforce—something those opposite never comprehended in the entire period they were in office.

The bill that we have before us today is an important part of setting the history right and setting the values of decent Australians back on the centre stage of industrial relations laws in this land. It contains important laws which all of us on this side are committed to. I would like to say that some of those on the other side share some of that commitment, but they do not. We confront Liberal and National parties that are still trying to come to grips with the reality that they lost an election. They struggle to comprehend that they are in opposition. They struggle to comprehend that the people of Australia in particular would have none of their industrial relations laws, their Work Choices laws. Let us just remember that name: Work Choices. It became so unpopular in this land that the government of the day and ministers of the day, who now sit opposite in opposition, instructed the public sector not to use the words ‘Work Choices’. After spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to sell it to the public, when the public knew that they had been sold a pup, those opposite, many of whom now sit on the front bench and want to be in government again, instructed their department officials not to use the term ‘Work Choices’. I think it would suit the purposes of the House if my speech was interrupted to enable a motion to be put.

Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned.