David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make one small point, and that is that the swing against the then government in Tasmania was the smallest of any state in the country; we just had very small margins. Of course, the unprecedented campaign against the new workplace changes by both unions and the Labor Party contributed significantly to the coalition’s loss last year. Never before have we seen anything like the third-party spend of $30 million on TV advertising alone. It is creating a huge precedent that I think is particularly concerning for the future of democracy in this country.

But the reality was that most—no, all—of that campaign constituted a scare campaign, leading to voters building a totally distorted and incorrect view of the reality of the effects of the new workplace system. The facts are that the system as it currently stands as enacted is actually more regulated and provides more protections than similar countries, such as the UK and New Zealand. At the same time, our system is giving people the option of having more flexible working arrangements which suit the modern workplace and help Australians balance work and family life. For the first time, in law, all employees have the following entitlements: a national minimum wage and minimum rates of pay according to award classifications; four weeks annual leave per annum; 10 days personal carers leave, including sick leave, per annum—locked in, in law; up to 52 weeks unpaid parental leave, including maternity leave; maximum ordinary hours of work of 38 hours per week, which can be averaged; and a fairness test that ensures employees receive fair compensation—in most cases a higher rate of pay—if they agree to change protected award conditions, including penalty rates, shift and overtime loadings, monetary allowances, annual leave loadings, public holidays, rest breaks and incentives based payments and bonuses. All employees have the right to have a bargaining agent to assist them in negotiating a workplace agreement. A ‘bargaining agent’ can be a friend, a relative, a union representative or a lawyer. Employees cannot be forced to sign an agreement or change their existing agreements. It is against the law to force an employee to sign an AWA. What is more, employees under 18 years of age must have the written consent of a parent or guardian before signing an AWA.

All employees, regardless of business size, are protected against unlawful termination. You cannot be sacked for a temporary absence from work because of illness or injury or because of your trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. You cannot be sacked for nonmembership of a trade union. You cannot be sacked for seeking office as a representative of employees or for filing a complaint against an employer. You cannot be sacked because of your race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin. All of those are protected, and sacking for those would be unlawful termination. Similarly, you cannot be sacked for refusing to negotiate, sign, extend, vary or terminate an AWA, even if, as Senator Wortley was saying before, an employer chooses to draft one that is the same for every employee in the place. If an employee refuses to sign it, they cannot be sacked. You cannot be sacked for an absence from work during maternity leave or other parental leave. You cannot be sacked for temporary absence due to voluntary emergency management activity.

In terms of unfair dismissal, as opposed to unlawful termination, employees who have worked for at least six months for a business with over 100 employees have the right to bring an unfair dismissal case. Employees have the right to join—or, more importantly, not to join—a union. Equally, employees have the right to take lawful industrial action when negotiating an agreement. Employees cannot be sacked, demoted or be denied shifts because they have a certain type of agreement or have made an inquiry or a complaint about their rights at work.

The government now claims that it has a mandate under which the opposition has no choice but to support the government’s IR legislation. With respect, I do not agree. It is quite clear that the government is trotting out the old mandate catchcry to support its own political ends, when it has always been the worst serial ignorer of mandates delivered to governments other than its own. The most obvious is its rejection of the clear mandate provided to the Howard government following the 1998 GST election. Just 25 days after that election, then opposition leader, Kim Beazley, promised that Labor would oppose the GST lock, stock and barrel—25 days after the election, when the people had given us the mandate. He said, ‘We will manoeuvre tactically in whatever way we can to try to procure the defeat of this GST legislation.’ Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared in 1999 that the introduction of the GST represented:

… a day of fundamental injustice … the day when the parliament of the country said to the poor of the country that they could all go and take a running jump.

This is despite the government having been given a clear mandate to introduce that legislation by the very people he was talking about. I note that Prime Minister Rudd is silent on the GST even though he now has the power to change it.

Throughout the Howard years, the Labor Party consistently voted against the privatisation of Telstra, despite the coalition winning the 1996, the 1998, the 2001 and the 2004 elections on a platform of privatisation. And of course in the Senate, Labor voted against the Howard government’s 40-plus attempts at unfair dismissal industrial relations reforms despite the party having taken this policy to the people and winning in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004. Where was Labor’s commitment to a mandate then? Why was Deputy Prime Minister Gillard not decrying any suggestion of Labor’s rejection of these measures as a slap in the face of democracy or of the people? They were nowhere, because a mandate means nothing to them unless it suits their own grubby political purposes. The fact is that the opposition has been provided with the level of representation it has in the Senate by the people. It is incumbent on the opposition to use that level of representation as it deems in the best interest of those people. Success of parties in the other place and the policies and platforms they espouse prior to their success should not constrict the ability of members of this place to consider decisions before them on the merits. It would be wrong to do so and the fact is that so-called ‘mandates’ should be only one of the factors considered by members of this place when deliberating over matters before them.

This bill purports to remove AWAs, a measure introduced by the Howard government 12 years ago and, as noted, working very well with over 1,300,000 people having taken them up. But the reality is that, despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying she would remove individual contracts, this bill includes individual contracts which, although labelled as temporary, will run indefinitely in effect for those who have entered into them. It also remains to be seen how much of the 2006 new workplace changes they retain. It is almost certain that much of that which they campaigned against in the last election will be retained and I look forward to examining future IR legislation in that regard.

But the fact remains that the IR changes introduced by the Howard government were intended to promote reduced unemployment, better and more flexible conditions for workers and employers, better pay in return for higher productivity, greater flexibility and productivity in the overall workforce—thereby addressing significant supply-side constraints in the macro economy and reducing inflationary pressures—and were driven by a desire to deliver real, practical outcomes for the benefit of all Australians. And it is also a fact that these changes delivered these benefits and more. The opposition to this could only have been driven by ideological dislike and to protect the patches of unions and their apparatchiks, yet the most recent changes did provide much ammunition to inaccurately and dishonestly feed a scare campaign against them.

In time, the wind back of any of these changes will prove to be to the detriment of the people of Australia. It is particularly sad that this bill purports to remove that which was introduced almost 10 years prior to the new workplace reforms and which had been working brilliantly at that time. The fact that AWAs got caught up with the hysteria dishonestly created over Work Choices is a great shame. IR laws need to have the flexibility to deliver what is required by the circumstances at the time. Economic theory states that full employment can be achieved where there are no restrictions or regulations placed on employment, but in such a case the conditions to employ the last of the unemployed will be less than what we as a nation are prepared to accept. As such, as a nation, we all agree on the need for some regulation to protect workers from exploitation, but we need to ensure that an appropriate and fair balance is struck. In times of high unemployment the balance needs to lean more towards employees who are more susceptible to exploitation in such circumstances. Similarly, in times of low unemployment, the balance needs to shift in favour of employers to avoid unwelcome economic consequences such as excessive wage inflation, low productivity in a tight labour market and general inflationary pressures. I have concerns where the passing of this bill will lead, but I understand and accept that it is likely to be passed. I will not object to that course.