Senate debates
Monday, 7 September 2009
Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers
Workplace Relations
3:07 pm
Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment Participation (Senator Arbib) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and Birmingham today relating to the award modernisation program.
The government made a promise; it promised the Australian people that its workplace relations reforms would not jeopardise jobs. The government promised the Australian people that its award overhaul would not increase costs for employers and would not disadvantage workers. The government made this promise repeatedly. The government requested the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to implement its promise. The government did this repeatedly in the face of warnings from experts—its very own experts in the sense of their being the experts who helped to advise the government about the implementation of its workplace reform programs. Professor Andrew Stewart, for example, has been warning the government publicly in committees of the Senate of the ‘shortcomings’ and ‘tensions’ inherent in its promise. Professor Stewart has said very clearly that ‘standardisation’ or ‘averaging’ inevitably means disadvantage somewhere.
In the face of these warnings the government has persisted in repeating its promise. The problem with its promise is that the government’s award overhaul is forcing ‘one size fits all’ and it is a fit that bodes badly for many. They are forcing wine-grape-growing farmers to face the same award faced by wine retailers. They are forcing country shows to be covered by the same award that covers Luna Park. They are forcing country and metro delis to be covered by the same award that would apply to Coles and Woolies. I have not seen a petrol bowser at my metro deli!
The government’s workplace award overhaul is foisting penalties on industries that have little choice, little control, in their working hours. The government, the Deputy Prime Minister, does not control when a zucchini ripens and needs picking, when a lettuce goes limp, when customers want to go to restaurants and cafes and when people want to go to country shows. The Deputy Prime Minister is working that out, so she has intervened to give some industries assistance: the restaurant and cafe sector, the horticultural sector and others. The government knows that other industries face the same challenges and they deserve the same deputy prime ministerial intervention to ensure that the government’s promise is kept.
What of the promise? The small business minister, Craig Emerson, told the press last week, ‘The commission is ensuring that any cost increases are minimised’—concession: there will be cost increases!—‘for businesses so that they are phased in over that five-year period.’ Well, Minister, come on! Delayed jobs death is still jobs death. A promise broken in five years is still a promise broken. The Prime Minister tries to say, ‘Oh, it was not a promise; it was an objective.’ Well, Prime Minister, an objective is a goal, and the Prime Minister knows the government has kicked an own goal.
They did this in the face of their own experts telling them there was tension inherent in their promise. They kept on repeating it and now it is incumbent upon the government to keep it. Delaying jobs destruction for five years is still jobs destruction. The Deputy Prime Minister must immediately intervene to help those other industries that are facing the same cost challenges as the industries that she has already intervened to help. Country shows, arguably, got to first base in the commission on Friday. The commission recognised that country shows can have their own award, but they, like restaurants and cafes and like horticulture and call centres, have only got to first base. There is a long way to go before those industries get home, and there is a long way to go before the government keeps its promise that its bungled award overhaul will not cost jobs, will not increase costs for employers and will not disadvantage workers. The government should suspend its bungled award overhaul until it can work out how to keep its promise.
No comments