Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The more things change at times in Australian politics, the more things stay the same. We may have seen this week a change in the leader of the Liberal Party and consequently a change in our Prime Minister, but we have seen no change in the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014. We have seen no change in the strategy of the government to relentlessly attack Australian workers, to relentlessly attack their conditions and to relentlessly attack the capacity of some of our lowest paid workers—those who struggle the most to be able to put food on the table for their families and to aspire to a better life.

This is a bill that was first put forward by a government and then Prime Minister who were on a crusade to slowly but surely strip away the rights of Australian workers. We are now under the new leadership of a government and we can see that nothing has changed. In this bill, we see a government—old or new; it does not seem to make much difference—that is continuing to put the profits of big business ahead of the rights of vulnerable Australian workers. This legislation is about changing minimum standards. It is not about giving people more flexibility. That is the spin we are hearing in relation to this legislation. Rather, it is actually about giving bad employers—not all employers in Australia are bad, but there are some who are in fact very bad employers—the capacity to have more power over vulnerable people. When one looks at the provisions in this bill, one can see that the government has basically gone back to the previous Fair Work review and cherry-picked the things that work to implement on one side of the ledger only. The problem is, of course, that there is nothing here to balance it up on the other side—the side that protects workers in this country.

In this bill we again see the obsession of the government—and again I make the point that it does not seem to matter whether it is the Abbott government or the Turnbull government here—about employees having access to their union representatives at reasonable times, and that, of course, remains something that we should fight to enshrine. In many workplaces often the only way workers can find out about what their entitlements are is by asking their union representative who can come in and tell them, 'No, actually there are laws to protect you, and you are entitled to be paid properly as a member of the Australian community and as a member of the Australian workforce.' Yet what we see here in this legislation is a winding back of the provisions that would allow someone to come in and give that explanation.

We know that what some unscrupulous employers do at the moment, and certainly have done from time to time in the past, is to say this to their workers, 'Sure, you're low paid worker; you can find out what your minimum legal rights. But I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll put the union representative, when they come during your lunch break, in the room next to my office and I'll just sit there with a clipboard making a note of every worker who comes in to get advice from the rep about what their minimum conditions are.' And we all know what could happen to those workers whose names are taken down for nothing more than seeking advice from the union rep. Currently the law says you cannot do that. The charge before us all as legislators is to strike a balance between not disrupting the workplace and allowing people to find out what their minimum entitlements are, and that balance is lost under this legislation.

When you think about this from the perspective of a vulnerable worker who may not, for example, have English as their first language, how are they going to find out about their rights? And the answer, of course, is that either they will not find out about their rights or it will be prohibitively difficult for them to find out about their rights. That will be the practicality of this legislation, and I and the Greens have no doubt that that is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.

I note that there have been a number of amendments to this bill, and most notably I note the amendments proposed by members of the crossbench. It is important that the crossbenchers who have proposed these amendments and this chamber more broadly are aware of what these amendments do, and we believe that essentially they make a bad bill just a little bit less bad. Yes, the amendments will remove part 2 of the bill which says that if you have happened to accrue annual leave loading and other reasonable measures during your time at work and it turns out that you get sacked before you have had the chance to take them, do not expect to get your full entitlement paid out; you are only going to get part of your entitlement paid out. And yes, it also takes out part 3 which would remove the right of employees to take or accrue annual leave while they are receiving workers compensation.

While the Greens welcome the removal of these provisions, we still cannot support this bill, because essentially they make a very bad bill just a little bit less bad. The deal the crossbench has done will take out some of the nastiest provisions that the original bill contained, yet still it does not go far enough to protect the rights of vulnerable Australian workers. What the crossbench deal has not removed from this nasty piece of legislation are the provisions that would take away employees' rights to industrial action. This will tip the scales in favour of the employer during negotiations.

Imagine going to your employer with a legitimate request for better pay and conditions and the employer being unwilling to even have a conversation with you about it and you as the employee having no legally protected course of action to make the employer come to the bargaining table. Under this bill an employer gets to be the sole decision maker on what legislation and minimum standards apply in their workplace. It removes the negotiation element of bargaining and allows an employer to sit there, fold their arms and say, 'I refuse to engage in discussions with you about an enterprise agreement.'

It is deeply concerning to the Greens, and ought to be deeply concerning to all members, that this bill will also take away an employee's only power in this situation, which is to take industrial action. Under existing laws, if employers refuses to negotiate with their employees, then the employees are able to commence stop-work meetings or go on strike. What are employees supposed to do when under this bill these options—their only two options: stop-work meetings or going on strike—are taken away from them? What are employees supposed to do? It is a question for us all.

The Greens have also moved amendments to this bill that will actually, genuinely make work fairer. Our amendments would give workers more job security. They would allow workers to have the flexibility that works for them so that they can have the time off work to pick up the kids, drop the kids off at school or look after a sick parent or grandparent, for example. The average full-time working week in Australia is 44 hours, the longest in the western world. Australian workers perform around $72 billion worth of unpaid overtime every year. Just over half of all Australians want to change their hours of work, even if it might impact on their income. What they are effectively saying to us is, 'Give us more genuine flexibility.' Flexibility means that mothers, fathers, family members and community members have opportunities to spend more time with their families, to play sport and to volunteer and build capacity in our communities. That is what the over half of Australians who want to change their hours of work even if it might impact on their income are saying to us as legislators. On average, full-time employees would like to work about 5.6 hours less per week. You can see there a genuine desire to work less, even if it impacts on income, so that people can spend more time doing the things that really matter in life.

Research shows that working hours are impacting on wellbeing. We are seeing poorer health outcomes and greater use of prescription medications. They are also affecting personal and family lives. For example, around 60 per cent of women feel consistently time pressured and nearly half of men feel that way as well.

In this country we need to better match the hours people want to work with the hours they actually work. If people want to work different, more flexible hours or work from home so that their life is better, then the law should allow that, provided it does not unduly impact on their employer. In fact, allowing workers more flexible hours will in many circumstances result in a productivity bonus not only for their employer but also for the economy. Business will benefit from that reform. Good employers are already promoting a more healthy work-life balance. Satisfied employees are likely to remain in a workplace longer and they are likely to be healthier and more productive.

We in this parliament need to be working to improve and protect the rights of Australian workers, not passing legislation that will bit by bit see their rights stripped away from them, their working conditions worsen and the fundamental protections given to them by current laws taken away. The Senate has twice rejected pieces of legislation that formed a major part of the current government's attack on people's rights at work. I hope and trust that the Senate will reject this piece of legislation too. However, right now we are concerned that some of the crossbench senators may be doing a deal with the coalition to get this legislation through. It may not pass in its current form, but it looks as if some of the worst parts of this legislation could still remain subsequent to any deals that are being done and could be passed if crossbench senators do a deal and join with the government to vote it through.

One of the Greens' main concerns with this bill is what it seeks to do to greenfields agreements. I commend the contribution of my colleague Senator Rhiannon earlier today, where she focussed very strongly on this issue. It is important that crossbench senators are aware of what this legislation would do. If it were to pass, the changes would deny workers on big projects any voice at all on their wages and conditions. These are workers on new big projects like new mines, ports and LNG processing plants. It would mean that employers are effectively able to bargain with themselves and unilaterally determine the wages and conditions that workers on their projects would receive without having to negotiate with workers or their representatives, including their union representatives.

In fact it goes far beyond this. It even allows the employers to choose which union they want to be their negotiating partner. Usually it is the workers who get to choose which union is involved in negotiations, but this legislation goes against that principle and allows the employers to choose. Not only would employers get to pick wages and conditions for workers; they would also get to pick their negotiating partner—who they will face off with at the negotiating table. This goes far, far beyond the recommendations of the Productivity Commission's draft report into workplace relations. That draft report recommends the Fair Work Act be amended so that:

… if an employer and union have not reached a negotiated outcome for a greenfields agreement after three months, the employer may …

But this piece of legislation will not even allow this. Instead of employers and unions negotiating a decent agreement on wages and conditions that works for both parties, this legislation would see employers able to just wait it out for three months, or for six months if one of the crossbench amendments passes. They would then be able to ask the Fair Work Commission to accept whatever they have put on the table, giving employees and unions absolutely no say at all.

The Greens believe that workers are entitled to share in the resources boom. But this legislation is really about letting employers and companies earn even more profit from their projects. We have not heard many reports of projects not getting off the ground because of difficulties negotiating under the current legislation. So this is not even an attempt to get more projects up; it is an attempt to let employers claw from employees an even greater share of the profits coming from agreements by shutting workers and unions out from negotiating their wages and conditions.

The Greens cannot support this bill as it currently stands; nor can we allow it to pass with only the amendments supported by the crossbench. As I said earlier in my speech, they make a very bad bill a little bit less bad. The amendments put forward by the Greens would significantly change this bill—in fact, they would radically change it: they would ensure that workers are truly given the flexibility and working conditions that they deserve.

As I previously said to this chamber, Australian workers want more genuine flexibility in their workplace. They want that so that they can spend more of their time doing things that really matter in life: playing with their kids; playing sport; working to volunteer in their communities; building stronger and more cohesive communities so that they can have a better place to live and so that their kids and their grandkids can have a better place to live. But that is genuine flexibility that is required here. I commend the work done by my colleague the member from Melbourne, Mr Bandt, in the other place, where he has been a strong and tireless advocate for a better work-life balance and more genuine workplace flexibility, so that we can all, as Australians, do more of the things that really matter in life.