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

It is just over 10 weeks since the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws were introduced. And, from week one, we have seen the truth of the Prime Minister’s plan exposed. In this relatively short period of time, we have seen many examples of how the new industrial agenda of this coalition government has severely impacted on the lives of working men and women. Time and time again, we see senators opposite scoff at these claims. They simply pass them off as rhetoric and point scoring. This is not about points or rhetoric. It is about what is fair and reasonable for Australian workers and their families. For those who wish to subscribe to that view, I impart to them the plight of people in South Australia who are contacting my office expressing their concern and anguish at the effects of the government’s Work Choices legislation. They tell me about what is happening in their workplaces: about employers who have taken a fairway wood to their rights at work—just because they can.

Across the Work Choices propaganda banners featured in advertisements on our televisions and the large display ads in the newspapers, we see a red stamp that reads ‘protected by law’. We are led to believe that this slogan is aimed at workers, yet there are employers out there who take it to mean that as an employer they can do as they like. Unfortunately, there are some employers—and I stress, some employers, not all—that are doing just that: doing away with rates of pay and conditions that workers had up until the introduction of the new IR legislation. Included in these are penalty rates, overtime pay, annual leave loading payments, incentive based payments and bonuses, and rest breaks. This is happening right now at workplaces in Australia, including in suburban Adelaide and in regional South Australia, because the reality is that under this government’s industrial relations laws, those employers who choose to are able to make these changes—and they are making them.

In the electorate of Hindmarsh, a 19-year-old university student receives a flat rate of $10.60 per hour even though she starts at 4.30 am. She is on an individual contract and is frightened that, if she protests, she will be sacked. That is what this government’s legislation allows—the right of an employer to sack a worker unfairly and without any real recourse. In the electorate of Adelaide, a 47-year-old man with a family to support was sacked less than 48 hours after the IR changes came into effect. That person was given no reason for his dismissal. And just over a week ago, in the electorate of Barker, a woman was sacked. The reason given to that employee of four years was that she had refused a work directive, yet she was given no prior warning. The workplace had fewer than 100 employees and, therefore, she was fair game as a result of the government’s removal of unfair dismissal rights. What is ‘protected by law’? It is not the worker.

Again, in the electorate of Hindmarsh, a young woman contacted me about having her hours significantly reduced because she chose not to sign an AWA, an Australian workplace agreement. Where is the ‘choice’ that the government showcased as part of the IR changes? There is no choice, and the reality of this is now coming to light, with the many examples of workers who are losing out that we are now learning about. In the electorate of Sturt, a young man was sacked because he needed a day off to have immediate root canal dental surgery. He needed one day for a legitimate medical reason. That young man did the right thing: he went and obtained a medical certificate, showed his boss and explained the seriousness of the situation. The day after the surgery, he was sacked. He was given no previous indicator about his performance, and until then he had not taken a sick day. Again, it was not the worker who was protected by law but the employer’s actions.

This is not some nightmare for workers from which they will wake tomorrow morning. This is happening every day in workplaces all around the country. Another reality that is beginning to hit people is their rapidly declining overtime pay. In a recent survey by the Office of the Employment Advocate an alarming statistic was uncovered. Out of 250 surveyed employers, 63 per cent said their new work agreements had no penalty rates included in them, and approximately the same number had removed leave loading—and it does not end there. There are many more workers who have been exposed to and have felt the wrath of the Work Choices legislation in recent weeks.

The situation that Spotlight employees are facing has received some attention from the press. However, I would like to expand on the situation a little and provide members of this place the opportunity to reflect on whether or not the terms of the Spotlight AWA are something that they deem to be fair and just for hardworking men and women and whether or not they would want their son or daughter, their brother or sister, being employed under this employer’s proposal. As I understand it, the Spotlight AWA removes maximum and minimum shift lengths, and does away with caps on the number of consecutive days, minimum breaks between shifts, rest pauses, rostered days off, incentive based payments, bonuses and annual leave loading. It also gives the workplace power to require staff to work extra hours at any time.

In addition to these reductions in pay and conditions, Spotlight has directly attacked the bottom line by not providing in the agreement a wage increase over its five-year life. So the price of a litre of milk will have risen. So too will a loaf of bread, the cost of electricity and gas, council rates, car registration, school fees and movie tickets. But what of the wages of Spotlight’s employees under these proposed AWAs? The Spotlight example, where workers can lose up to $90 per week as a result of the government’s Work Choices legislation, sends out a clear message: this government is on the side of employers and profits, regardless of the costs to working families. There is no real bargaining and no protection for established conditions.

This workplace debate is not about pitting employers against employees; it is simply about what is fair to ordinary, honest, hard-working Australian men and women. The reality is that the Howard government’s industrial relations laws are not fair and not just and Australian workers do not deserve to be treated in this way, and nor do their families. The Senate majority has enabled the Howard coalition government to introduce laws that allow employers to pay workers well below what they could previously have expected and to reduce their conditions of employment. The government has introduced laws that go some way to preventing workers from being organised in their workplace and working towards a collective goal. It has introduced laws that replace what was, in many cases, fair and reasonable with reduced rights and reduced incentives.

How many more Australian workers will have to go through the anguish that many of these workers have had to endure over recent weeks? How many more families will have to suffer under this draconian legislation? One has to ask the question: if it is not good for workers and their families, how then is it good for Australia?