Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to express my profound disappointment and deep concern at Labor’s inability to legislate its promises to Australian workers and Australian business that its award overhaul process would not cost jobs, would not increase costs for employers and would not disadvantage workers. The passage of the so-called fair work transitional bill through this place last week occurred in the absence of, in particular, the opposition amendment that would have required the government to legislate its promise and the opposition amendment that would have required the Deputy Prime Minister to require the Industrial Relations Commission to do just what she says she has required it do in respect of the restaurant and catering sector—to do the same thing for each and every other industry that considers they have the same, they deserve the same and that the government should, at the very least, be entertaining the prospect of giving them the same. But the passage of the fair work legislation through this place and indeed through the other place shows that the government cares not for keeping its promise that its award overhaul will not cost jobs, will not increase costs for business and will not disadvantage workers. The opposition continues to get messages from business and concerned people about exactly that—the government’s failure to keep its promise and how the opposition’s amendment would have offered some help in the process.

It is interesting that during the recent debate the government wheeled in its ferocious attack dog in Senator Marshall. Senator Marshall, apart from his very constructive contribution in general, made a couple of pertinent comments. To highlight these comments I will quote Senator Marshall in addressing his comments to Senator Fielding, who, of course, had supported the key opposition amendment that was passed by the Senate for but some short period of time due to the alleged inability of a member of this place to attend the chamber for the division. Senator Fielding had supported the opposition amendment because he knew it kept the government’s promise. Senator Marshall said:

What the opposition wants to do, Senator Fielding—

with this amendment—

is sabotage this process … What they want to do is invite everybody to make that argument and to make that case, and all that will do is add chaos.

The two key words in Senator Marshall’s contribution were ‘sabotage’ and ‘chaos’. ‘All that will do is add chaos,’ said Senator Marshall. Implicit in that comment is a concession that there already is chaos—and, oh dear, he is right. It is exactly to address the chaos in the restaurant and catering sector that the Deputy Prime Minister carved out special provisions for the sector. The government has no plan, no policy and no process for dealing with each and every other industry that considers they suffer from each and every factor that she cited as her grounds for carving out the restaurant and catering sector. They have the same; they deserve the same. The government has no plan, no policy and no process for delivering anything like the same. And they ran with Senator Marshall saying ‘all it will do is add chaos’—yes, to your existing chaos, sir, and industry says that chaos is ruling.

What about Senator Arbib’s responses—well-intentioned, nonetheless—to my questions about the consultation process with industry, who have expressed key concerns? For example, wine grape growers—who are, Lord love ’em, glorified farmers; they are primary producers—are to be lumped into the wine industry award together with people who package and sell wine. In response to my questions about consultation about that sector, Senator Arbib said:

We will also, Senator Fisher, engage with the wine growers, who have very recently written to the minister … given the AIRC is yet to consider their issues and on 22 May asked for submissions from them, the government strongly encourages those employers to engage with that process.

Minister, please! Presumably unbeknown to the minister at the time, he informed the chamber of that, on 17 June, was the fact that the commission had already closed the time line for those consultations. The commission’s statement issued on 22 May forecast that:

Proposals, submissions and other material in relation to—

what is known as round 3 draft awards in this process of chaos—

are to be lodged with the Commission by 12 June.

It says that parties should adhere to the timetable. That is already gone; it is already over. Senator Marshall said, ‘What the opposition wants to do, Senator Fielding, is sabotage this process.’ The only sabotage happening is the government sabotaging its promise and, in the process, sabotaging industry, sabotaging workers and sabotaging jobs—disappointingly, with the undoubtedly unwitting and unintentioned aiding and abetting from Senator Xenophon.

Senator Xenophon, in expressing his inability to support our key amendments in respect of award modernisation, said:

I indicate that I am not inclined to support the coalition’s amendment for a number of reasons … the amendment that has just been passed, which was about the likely effects on the relevant industry or industry sector of any modern award including on productivity, labour costs and regulatory burden on business, would cover the concerns of the coalition.

Well, Senator, no, it would not. That is why our amendment listed nine factors: potential for the modern award to impact upon continuing business viability, low profit margins, peak operating times, limited capacity to bear significant cost increases, different business models, different streams of revenue from other activities, the labour intensive nature of the industry, high labour costs as a proportion of total expenses and high award reliance. No, Senator, it would not. That is exactly the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister cited those sorts of grounds in her justification for carving out the restaurant and catering sector.

Industry says the same thing. I have had industry contacting me since this chamber’s consideration of the transitional to fair work legislation began. Geoff Penfold, Chair of Ausab Pty Ltd, a member of the abalone industry said:

Aquaculture is an extreme case. While most of the others listed—

he is referring to other industries—

are optional to some extent, caring for aquaculture stock is a 7 day operation and over long hours. We have no option.

As Senator Abetz said during the debate, the Deputy Prime Minister does not control the ins and outs of these industries; factors beyond human control control the ins and outs of these industries, and the commission has thus far demonstrated through the government’s process its inability to cope with those ins and outs.

My Anthony Williamson, proprietor of Just Uniforms, a uniform wholesale and manufacture outfit—pun not intended—based in Hutt Street, Adelaide, said:

Our industry is already decimated and to a point beyond repair as weekly there are suppliers and manufacturers closing their doors. I am referring to the textile industry which easily meets your criteria—

actually it is the Deputy Prime Minister’s criteria, and our amendments focused only on her criteria—

on exposed industries to the Labor changes. We are in a unique position as we vertically integrate … Even so, we have to compete …

There are more comments from the wine grape growing sector:

The only sabotage that has occurred thus far with the transition to fair work act is by Labor through its promise to not increase costs for business, to not disadvantage workers and to not cost jobs. The only sabotage to have occurred and to continue to occur is of industry, of workers and of their jobs. (Time expired)