Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I am going to show considerable restraint and not get stuck in once again about the former abuse of the committee process as I have already done that twice today and I do not want to bore everybody to tears. At this time I would like to discuss some of the proposed committee terms of reference. The Greens, of course, do believe it is important that this legislation be referred to committee. We believe it should have been done through the selection of bills process and supported the government’s referral to the Selection of Bills Committee, with the reporting date of 17 March. It is interesting to note too that, because the government was not proposing to put any restraints on what the committee could review, any issue would then have been open for a review through that process.

We believe the terms of reference that the opposition are proposing reflect their particular ideology around AWAs and individual statutory agreements in many of the particular points—particularly, terms of reference (c) and (d), which refer to the ‘potential for a wages breakout and increased inflationary pressures’ and the ‘potential for increased industrial disputation’. We believe these terms of reference are pre-empting a particular point of view of the impact of the changes to the legislation and, basically, running the opposition’s political point of view. They are not listening to the fact that the Australian people have said very definitely: ‘We don’t want AWAs. We don’t want them.’ The coalition continue with their particular point of view. They also seem to be a bit confused about AWAs. On the one hand, when it suits them, they reckon AWAs are increasing wages. On the other hand, when it suits them, they reckon getting rid of AWAs is going to lead to a wages breakout. So it is a bit fascinating. If you look at the terms of reference, they have changed the way they refer to AWAs. They are now adopting the term ‘individual statutory agreements’ rather than naming them what they are—AWAs. This is fascinating but it is an acknowledgement of the fact that they realise that AWAs are poisonous and that they know the community hates them. As Senator Wong rightly pointed out, you had to have been fast asleep during the election if you did not work out that a key part of the election was about AWAs and Work Choices.

I also take on board Senator Bartlett’s comments about a mandate. I agree with his comments in that I think the government does have a mandate to change the legislation, to get rid of AWAs and to get rid of Work Choices. But it does not give them the mandate to then just put any legislation in without letting this Senate carry out its proper work of review and scrutiny. With regard to the issue of mandates, the Howard government never went to the electorate with Work Choices; it only brought it in when it realised it had gained control of the Senate at the 2004 election. So, while the Howard government had no mandate for that legislation, the Rudd government was very strongly elected on the basis of industrial relations legislation. However, the Greens do not believe that the Rudd government’s proposed changes, as put forward during the election, went far enough. We will be using the Senate process to review this legislation and to make sure it is delivering much better industrial relations and the much promised industrial relations reform.

It is clear that AWAs fall into two categories: those used to lower wages and those used de-unionise a workplace. It is important that the committee understand the impact of AWAs on workers and what the transitional bill will mean for those workers. We believe there is a critical role to be played to look at this legislation to make sure it is doing what it is purporting to be doing. It is also interesting to note that the opposition do not seem to care about the impact AWAs have had on workers in terms of lowering wages. It is concerned about a wages breakout but it does not seem to be concerned about the impact AWAs have had on lost wages or about the reduction of conditions through these instruments.

The Greens strongly support this legislation being referred to the committee. We have made that abundantly clear ad infinitum in this place over the years. We will be supporting Senator Wong’s proposed amendment for 17 March. If it is unsuccessful, I am persuaded by Senator Bartlett’s arguments about the extra days of sitting. We Greens want to see, in particular, the awful blot of this legislation gone and the awful blot of AWAs in Australia removed. That is why we are putting the effort in to make sure we get across this legislation very quickly so that we are able to look at its impacts and ensure that it is delivering what it is promising to deliver. Let us get on with it. Let us refer this to the committee. As I said, we are not happy with these terms of reference. We would prefer to use the wider Selection of Bills Committee process. But let’s refer it to the committee on 17 March.