Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ronaldson for that minuscule contribution to this debate. I rise to talk about Aboriginal Hostels, but I want to just start by saying that I come from a trade union background and I am damned proud that I do, considering the number of people I assisted in my eight years as a trade union official. I am pretty pleased to have come from that background. That leads me to talk to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and its place in the world of Work Choices.

Aboriginal Hostels was set up in 1973 and has provided temporary accommodation for Indigenous people ever since. AHL currently operates 49 company hostels and funds 71 community hostels in over 100 sites across this country. They provide over 3,000 beds a night in various categories: transient, medical, students living away from home, homeless people and aged care. This accommodation is provided Australia-wide.

Aboriginal Hostels Ltd has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recruitment and career policy. Under this policy Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up some 82 per cent of staff, making it one of the largest single employers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the nation. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd employs nearly 500 people in two categories: predominantly they are either administrative or industrial staff, the latter being, of course, the cooks, cleaners, nightwatchmen and so on—the salt-of-the-earth workers in this country. On its website, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd says it:

... provides the opportunities that improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The company provides an appropriate hostel environment that helps Indigenous people gain access to services like hospitals and schools.

While Aboriginal Hostels Ltd may be helping others, it is at present doing very little to help its own employees, taking a hardline approach and offering workers Australian workplace agreements which diminish their pay and conditions.

Previously, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd has negotiated three collective agreements that have been reached between AHL and their workers. But now in this current round of wage negotiations—if you could in fact call it that—it is offering staff the choice between staying on their existing terms and conditions, on the now expired enterprise bargaining agreement, an agreement which actually expired on 16 December last year, or signing an Australian workplace agreement, which offers a wage increase: 12 per cent over three years. Let us get this really clear as I start this debate—Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is offering to all of its staff, of which 82 per cent are Indigenous people, a choice of staying on their enterprise agreement, which they will not deregister, or taking a wage increase that comes with the requirement that you must sign an AWA—and it also comes at the cost of giving up some conditions, such as maternity leave, and with reduced conditions, such as annual leave.

I sat in my office this evening and listened to Senator Fierravanti-Wells espouse the wonders of Work Choices and AWAs. So I hope she is still around to listen to this contribution. The management of AHL have refused to negotiate a new enterprise bargaining agreement. They are forcing their staff to accept an AWA in order to access a wage increase. AHL will say that they are not forcing staff to sign an AWA at all. No, they are probably not. Staff have a choice to stay under the enterprise agreement that expired on 16 December last year. But if that is the case, they will not be getting a wage increase over the next three years. There is nothing legally stopping them negotiating a new enterprise agreement. It has been a management decision not to do so. This is another great example of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation at work—where workers, in effect, have no real choice at all; where employers can put workers between a rock and hard place. For an organisation that claims to have a caring environment and provide good accommodation and services for its Indigenous clients, they are certainly not showing the same care towards their Indigenous staff.

In estimates in February, when I had very little time to question AHL about their direction, I asked whether in fact they had been directed to do this by the federal government—was there some prescriptive requirement by the federal government to do this. We have seen it in universities, where universities can only accept certain funding on the basis that they offer their employees AWAs. Let us bear in mind here that the CEO, Mr Keith Clarke, has provided me with some answers, and I will certainly be pursuing this in the coming weeks. Mr Clarke advised me in estimates:

The government did not give us any direction, according to the bargaining we were doing for our staff, no.

He went on to say:

We as a management of the organisation decided to make a business decision because we wanted to offer an agreement that gives us a bit of flexibility to run the business ... We have had three certified agreements in the past. We believe that the AWA gave us a little bit more flexibility in trying to run the business.

But I get out of estimates and I discover that in fact there has been an exchange of letters between AHL and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, the union representing the workers at AHL. What does it actually say? In a letter to Mr Ferrari, the Assistant National Secretary, AHL had this to say:

The Board meets on five different occasions each year in different States/Territories.

The AHL Board does not get involved in the day to day management of the organisation ...

It is:

... a decision that is being made by AHL management in accordance with Australian Government policy and the AHL Board fully supports their decision.

Whoops! So AWAs are actually now being pushed onto workers at Aboriginal Hostels Ltd in accordance with Australian government policy. What policy might that be? In another letter to the LHMU, signed by Mr Keith Clarke on 5 September 2006, he writes:

Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL) has decided to offer Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA’s) to all eligible employees rather than a collective agreement. This decision is in line with current Government Policy.

One might ask: what policy is that? I asked Aboriginal Hostels Ltd through the Senate committee to clarify on the record why there was some confusion, perhaps dishonesty, at estimates when I later found out that in an exchange of letters with the union they actually referred to a direction of government policy. In the letter that was then sent to the community affairs committee on 21 February this year, signed by Mr Clarke, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd had this to say:

... in no way did I mean this—

that is, the answer they gave me in estimates that it was not in line with government policy; but their decision was in line with government policy if you look at the letters—

to imply that AHL had received any directives or pressure from the Australian Government to offer AWAs rather than a collective agreement. I simply meant that AHL’s choice of opting for AWAs was in keeping with or ‘in line’ with the policy parameters for agreement making in the Australian Public Service.

I suppose the next question we will be asking is exactly what are those policy parameters for agreement making in the Australian Public Service? One might say that that is akin to perhaps covering your tracks. He then goes on to say:

The decision to offer AWAs was a decision by AHL’s management because AWA’s offer more flexibility ...

Wait on. I thought that back on 9 November last year AHL actually said, in a letter from Elaine McKeon:

The AHL Board does not get involved in the day to day management of the organisation ...

So one has got to ask: exactly what is happening here? I know what is happening here. What is being offered under the AWAs is a reduction in annual leave from six weeks to four weeks. They claim that AHL went to six weeks annual leave in an attempt to allow more staff time off and to reduce absenteeism, but that it had not worked. The management argues that this step therefore brings AHL back into line with most other Commonwealth agencies. They further argue that many staff asked for more pay but less leave and that money saved by a reduction in leave would be passed on in pay rises under the AWA. Let us be really clear about this: Aboriginal Hostels workers will remain amongst the worst off. Management say that no workers will be forced to sign an AWA. What choice is that? Stay on the expired workplace agreement with no pay rise over the next three years or sign an AWA. No choice under Work Choices.