Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Vanstone) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and McEwen today relating to changes to industrial relations.

We saw today, yet again, the Howard government’s extreme approach to industrial relations. What was confirmed yet again is that their ideological blinkers will not let them be swayed in their determination to impose further reductions in the rights which are afforded to Australian workers. We know this because Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, said in his speech to the HR Nicholls Society:

We do need to seek a mandate from the Australian people at the next election for another wave of industrial relations reforms.

And today in the Senate, on a day when four million or more Australian workers will lose their right to challenge an unfair dismissal, this minister refuses to indicate which of the few rights remaining under this government’s extreme laws will be in this government’s gun sights in the future. We have a situation where this government has already pared down Australians’ fragile rights to a bare minimum. What we want to know is: will it be sick leave? Will it be parental leave? Will it be the concept of a minimum wage? Will it be hours of work? Will it be annual leave? Or will it be all of them—will they all be up for grabs?

What we saw today is Senator Minchin again describing this as a moderate and reasonable package and saying that Australia will still have a more regulated system than a number of other countries. If what he is referring to is the United States, I say: thank goodness for that. We in this country, until this government came to power, have always opposed the American social model: the concept of the working poor and the sort of dog-eat-dog situation in workplaces that we fear will come under this legislation. So what we think was confirmed again in question time today is that there is more to come. What we saw was Minister Minchin refusing to rule out which of the few rights which remain will in fact not be targeted by this government in the future.

On top of that, Senator Vanstone, in an extraordinary flight of fancy in answer to a question from Senator McEwen, did not address the issue of the workers in South Australia at Murray Bridge and at Naracoorte but went off on a discussion of a whole range of other issues associated with visas. I say this at the outset: there is nobody in the Labor Party who is opposed to foreign workers coming into Australia if—I stress if—that is appropriate. What we say is: you do not abuse and rort a visa process to allow unscrupulous employers to employ foreign workers when Australians could be employed. You do not allow a situation where a skilled visa is used to essentially cut the cost of labour through the exploitation of foreign workers, wherever they might be from, who are performing jobs which do not comply with the visa classifications. What was put to Senator Vanstone in relation to the so-called skilled visas for the workers identified by Senator McEwen is that her own department had suggested they were not in fact doing skilled work.

So what is facing Australian workers under this government? First, there is a situation where this government does not ensure that unscrupulous employers do not rort a visa process such that it simply deprives an Australian of a job they would otherwise legitimately have had. But, more importantly, we have had clearly articulated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his speech to the HR Nicholls Society that there is more to come.

What we do know is this: what if we have a situation where an employer unfairly dismisses employees and replaces them with people on a so-called skilled visa? First, we can have absolutely no confidence that there will be any rights to remedies for the workers involved. We know that what this government has done is to remove unfair dismissal rights from four million Australian workers. Second, do we have any confidence whatsoever that DIMA will ensure that the visa has been appropriately applied? Do we have any confidence that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will ensure that skilled visas are in fact used to bring in skilled workers where there is a skills shortage in Australia? Because our concerns are that that is not the way they are being utilised by a number of employers. The meshing of a number of Howard government policies will make jobs for Australians more insecure and will reduce their rights at work, and the worst thing about this is that we know from Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that there will be more to come. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it fascinating that here we are back after a three-week break and we have an opposition that again is just absolutely, totally devoid of any policy input into this country at all—not one single word. This debate is characterised by a comment allegedly made at a dinner meeting. Did we hear one word today about protecting Australian workers? Did we hear one word today about an acknowledgement of the fact that strong economic growth is the quickest and simplest way to protect Australian workers? Why is it that the Australian Labor Party seems totally incapable of cutting its ties with the union movement, which invariably involves the destruction of workers’ rights in this country, but instead promotes the trade union movement?

There is nothing clearer in my view, nothing clearer at all, than to look at what has happened in relation to real wages in this country since 1996 to see who has got the policies right in relation to Australian workers. There has been a 16 per cent plus increase in real wages since 1996 compared to 1.2 per cent for the 13 years when the Australian Labor Party was last in government. It seems to me that the ALP continues to treat Australian workers as fools because, I tell you what, there is not one Australian worker who will forget the recession of the 1990s—the recession we had to have. No amount of regulation protected the jobs of those workers; no regulation protected those jobs.

I remember in my home city of Ballarat two in three shops in the main street were closed. No regulation protected the jobs of the workers in those shops. What lost those jobs for those Australian workers was the inability of the Australian Labor Party to run a strong economy and the inability of the Australian Labor Party to bring in appropriate reforms to make sure we maintained a strong economy and therefore maintained jobs growth. Since 1996 there have been 1.7 million new jobs created in this country. That is what this government is doing for the Australian worker and part of that process has been reform—industrial relations reform. I remember after the last round the Chicken Littles came out and said the world was going to collapse—the world as we knew it was going to collapse. What have we seen since? Low inflation, unemployment down to about five per cent and strong jobs growth. That is the outcome of those last reforms: a strengthened economy and a strengthened opportunity for Australian workers.

I noticed that in the Bendigo Advertiser today, the very, very marginal member for Bendigo was talking about industrial relations reform. Remember, we have to go back to the last two days. This is Chicken Little and the world is just about to collapse; the world as we know it will collapse because of these IR reforms, apparently. This is what the member for Bendigo said:

“It will be a slow burn,” the Opposition MP said. “It won’t be for 12 or 18 months that workers look back and see that their wages and conditions have been reduced.”

Australian workers know exactly what their wages and conditions are. Australian workers know exactly what has happened to their wages and conditions under this government. If the Australian Labor Party spent less time trying to remove people such as Ann Corcoran, a hardworking local member, from politics—if they spent less time trying to remove the Ann Corcorans of this world—and actually did something about policy development then they would be substantially stronger. The Australian Labor Party owes Ann Corcoran— (Time expired)

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion to take note of answers to questions that were provided by Ministers Vanstone and Minchin. Today is a red letter day for the Howard government, we have to say, because finally today it gets to impose on Australian workers an industrial relations agenda that is so extreme that even the ultra-extremist HR Nicholls Society is critical of it. All of the government ministers’ finest rhetoric and quotes cannot disguise the reality of more than 1,000 pages of legislation and regulations—more than 1,000 pages that will undo more than 100 years of struggle by the workers of this country to build an Australian workplace system based on the notion of a fair go for everyone. It was a system that had as its centrepiece the independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It was a system that had as its starting point industrial awards that guaranteed all employees a fair wage and which meant that employers were not forced to reduce wages to give themselves an advantage against their competitors.

It was a system that gave employees who were unfairly dismissed the right to challenge their termination of employment and seek redress. It was a system that allowed the states to have their own industrial relations systems, systems that were by and large simple for employers and employees to use. It was a system that enabled unions, through test cases, to apply for changes to working arrangements that benefited all workers and their families, not just union members. Let us not forget that it was unions, in 120 years of struggle, who fought for paid annual leave, paid sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, redundancy pay and a plethora of other workplace benefits. The legislation that comes into effect today is a shameless attack on the ability of unions to continue to do that work on behalf of all Australians and their families. As we know from Senator Minchin’s comments to the HR Nicholls Society, there are people in the government who do not think the legislation has gone far enough and who want to implement an even more extreme agenda to send us further down the path of the American system of low pay, no security, take it or leave it workplace arrangements.

It is a very curious thing that a government that engages endlessly in rhetoric about freedom, choice, individual rights and doing away with third party interference has today implemented an industrial system that has a centralised federal government on front and centre stage, a government that will now be able to wield power to veto arrangements that employers and employees may want to willingly enter into. The hypocrisy of the government’s legislation is astounding. It is a curious thing indeed that the government that talks about reducing the ability of third parties to interfere in workplace arrangements has just imposed on the employers of Australia a whole gamut of regulatory organisations and government bodies that can legitimately meddle in an employer’s affairs, even if the employer does not want them there.

That is just an extension of the extremism and out-of-control ideology that we have seen from this government—and they call us centralists; they call us communists! You have to ask! I can only assume that the government ministers who spoke today think they will be able to dupe the Australian workforce with their weasel words and their rhetoric. I do not think that will work. Australian workers were not duped by the $21 million Work Choices booklet, five million of which still remain stored in warehouses in Sydney and Brisbane at a cost of $8,000 a month to the Australian taxpayer. They were not duped by that and I do not think they will be duped by the words that we have heard here today.

The meatworkers at Teys abattoirs in Naracoorte in South Australia certainly will not be duped. They have already seen what can happen when an out of control government’s legislative agenda enables them to be forced to sign AWAs when they really want to be under a collective agreement. They have seen what happens when an uncaring, incompetent Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs allows her department to bring in foreign labour to do the work of Australians for lower wages. The workers at Teys Brothers will not forget, just as we on this side will not forget. Those Teys workers should be applauded for standing up on behalf of all Australian workers to try and defend— (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to assure Senator McEwen that I have not—and I do not know of any of my colleagues who have—called her a communist. The wall fell down a long time ago. Rest assured, Senator McEwen, we do not accuse you of communism at all. We say, though, that you and those on the other side are out of date old socialists. There is a slight difference. You are defending an old, regulated, centralist system of the early 1900s. That is what we accuse you of: a protectionist attitude to defend your union masters. We quite understand that you have to come in here. Your preselections depend on that, and the latest round of preselections in Victoria is evidence of it. It is evidence of just how the union movement controls your preselections.

We understand you have to come in here, as desperate as you are, trying to throw up haunting scenarios that may occur under the new industrial relations laws. But as Senator Ronaldson said—and he put it as plain as day; you ought to go out and market test what he said—the Australian public, let alone the Australian workers, know the results of the first round of industrial relations reforms in 1996. They are not going to be scared by you ever again. Under any analysis, the first round of reforms in 1996—having introduced Australian workplace agreements, the Employment Advocate and those sorts of first introductions—was more extreme, if you like to use that word, and more reforming than this one. Yet what have we seen? We have seen that the results are on the board, the jury is in and the proof is in the pudding. Regardless of the rhetoric you ran in that time, you cannot defend the score on the board. We have an employment rate of around five per cent, the lowest in some 30 years.

What is the essence of any government policy? What does every portfolio actually boil down to? It boils down to the employment rate. Employment is the true acid test of a government. It is something that, when you were in government, you failed miserably at, setting records of unemployment. This government is setting records of low unemployment. You had a million unemployed at your peak; we have some 500,000 to 600,000 unemployed—five per cent. My point is that that is the test of any government. It is the essence of any industrial relations system that gets people employed. Workers have, over the past 10 years, enjoyed real wages growth. It is not just employment that they are achieving, but also real wages growth. So their standards of living have improved. Those dual figures prove beyond doubt that the first tranche of industrial relations reforms in 1996 was a success, yet you come in here and run the same old arguments against this second tranche of industrial relations reforms. It simply will not wash out there, whatever market testing you seek to do.

This new reform process is a continuation of the government’s earlier reform. It is an integral part of maintaining the productivity, modernisation and flexibility of our economy. It is integral to all other reforms that we have introduced economically. Again I say that the score is on the board—not just in the unemployment rate but also in low interest rates. They do not just come about. That just does not happen because you have a booming economy, you are selling your minerals to China and therefore you have that cascading effect. A government has to work at managing its economy. At all points it has to reform. Surely a rigid, inflexible and out-of-date industrial relations system is the first port of call for reform.

The core principles were outlined by the Leader of the Senate when he was answering questions—they are to improve the conditions of individual workers, and that has been done; to increase the flexibility and meet the changing needs of the modern economy and of families and individuals; and, of course, to improve the productivity of individual workers and business. What do we hear from the Labor Party? Should they get into government, they will revert all of these reforms back to the old industrial relations system. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate taking note of answers provided by Minister Vanstone on alleged misuse of 457 visas approved by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and also to the answers provided by Senator Minchin. I speak about this issue on a day that should see a black armband on every working Australian and a ring of shame around the Howard government for its extreme industrial imposition on working Australians. Today we observed the introduction of an industrial relations system that sees more than four million Australians lose their job security. We see a system that exposes millions of Australians to unfair dismissal and millions of hardworking Australians to uncompromising and unchallenging conditions.

The working men and women of Australia may well say: ‘At least I can still rely on the award safety net. At least my boss cannot impose an individual contract on me. At least I can still collectively bargain. At least I will not lose my overtime.’ Well, that changed today. Today the rights of working men and women in Australia have been drastically reduced. Gone are the unfair dismissal rights for workplaces with fewer than 100 staff. Ninety-five per cent of businesses in my home state of South Australia have 100 or fewer staff. Gone also are the rights to pursue unfair dismissal for workers who are dismissed for genuine operational reasons. One must ask the question: who determines what genuine operational reasons are? Gone are the significant role and powers of the independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission through the transfer of control of collective agreements to the Office of the Employment Advocate.

Workers are confused about the changes. Perhaps they should ask Senator Minchin to explain them to them. While he is doing that, he can explain why he is part of a government that is implementing a system that is grossly unpopular with the people of this country. He did give us a small insight the other day, when he openly stated that most Australians ‘don’t agree at all with anything we’re doing on this.’ He said, ‘We have minority support.’ This statement contravenes the Prime Minister, who claims that the government majority in this chamber gives him a mandate from the Australian people to do as he pleases.

The government is using today as a measuring stick for the public to gauge how the new law will affect them. The Prime Minister wants working Australians to disregard the constant warnings not only from the union movement but also from independent study groups, academics and even some in the business community. The Prime Minister is likening today to a ‘sky is falling’ scenario. In fact, Senator Ronaldson referred to that earlier. It is a sentiment being echoed by Peter Vaughan from Business SA, who also claims that we should ignore the rhetoric—the world will not end today, he says.

For some Australian workers—for example, some workers in South Australia—the sky is caving in today. At the meatworks in Naracoorte in South Australia workers have for some weeks been locked out by their employer. Today workers have been allowed to return to work. The employer withdrew the lockout. But, when the workers returned to work, gone were their skilled jobs and gone was the pay they received for them. The company has placed them in labouring jobs, not their previous skilled positions. The union representing them, the AMIEU, has been informed that these workers will be receiving up to $400 less pay per week than they previously received.

This is just the beginning of the effect of the Howard government’s extreme and uncaring attitude, leading to the changes to the industrial relations laws which we see implemented today. The sky is caving in on these workers in Naracoorte, on their job security and on their guaranteed wage, which translates to putting food on the table and paying their bills and medical expenses—the necessities of life. On the issue of the 457 visas, Minister Vanstone said that all allegations of abuse of this visa would be investigated and this applies to the workers at Naracoorte. Minister Vanstone was written to in January. Another letter was written in February. But there was no reply. DIMA did go out and inspect both—(Time expired)

Question agreed to.