John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Wong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

That after just one year of the Howard Government’s Work Choices Laws, it is clear that these extreme and unfair laws are hurting working Australian families through erosion of take home wages and conditions and fewer rights in the workplace.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I rise to speak on a matter of public importance: the first anniversary of the unfair industrial relations laws introduced by this government. Today marks one year since Mr Howard’s unfair and extreme industrial relations laws came into force. At the time that these laws were being debated, we in the Labor Party said that their full impact would not be felt for some time. But, just one year on, the results are already worse than many of us would have expected, and the facts speak for themselves. Let us not forget some of the people who we know have been most hurt this year by Mr Howard’s unfair laws.

Who can forget Annette Harris at Spotlight, a worker who saw her conditions and entitlements shredded for the princely sum of 2c per hour? Who can forget the 2c per hour this Spotlight worker was given for having to give up a range of penalty rates and other wages and conditions? Let us not forget the 29 Cowra abattoir workers who were sacked for so-called ‘operational reasons’ then reinstated on inferior terms and conditions. These laws also have been pretty devastating for employees at the Lufthansa call centre, who were up to $50 per week worse off in take-home pay due to the Prime Minister’s wage-cutting AWAs. The laws have also been pretty devastating for Mr Michael King, the 25-year-old who worked for seven years at the Hilton IGA supermarket in Perth but had to look for a job elsewhere because his only work choice under the supermarket’s new owner was a wage-cutting AWA or no job at the supermarket at all.

We know that this is only the tip of the iceberg and there are many more Australian families who have been affected by Work Choices, but what we do not know is the statistical information about that. Why is that? It is because this government is trying to hide the true impact of Work Choices. The last and only time the government released its own figures about the impact on employees of these unfair laws was May last year, and what did those statistics on Australian workplace agreements show? The only set of figures the government has ever seen fit to release, and what did they show? One hundred per cent of all AWAs surveyed removed at least one so-called protected award condition, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 52 per cent removed shiftwork loadings and 46 per cent removed public holiday payments. That is the only information this Howard government has ever allowed into the public arena. But since then what have they done? They have covered it up. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has refused to direct the Office of the Employment Advocate—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because he can’t!

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

He can direct them! He can seek that information. The Howard government does not want this information out because it realised in May 2006 that exactly what we on this side of the chamber said would happen has happened—that those AWAs, for the vast majority of people, are about reducing wages and conditions. That is why you do not want this information out there and why you do not want to come clean.

Despite the government’s refusal to give out any of this information—not to ask the Office of the Employment Advocate or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations more broadly to do a review and tell the Australian people exactly what is happening under AWAs—some information is still getting out there. It is even getting out there to Liberal candidates. We know, for example, that Pru Goward on Radio National recently made the following statement about people in the seat of Goulburn, where she was campaigning for the New South Wales election:

... they were telling me that their shift loadings were being cut and their incomes ... were going down.

Today in question time we also heard about the Nationals’ candidate for Tweed, Mr Provest, who had raised concerns about his son’s penalty rates and indicated that more needed to be done to protect those penalty rates. The reality is that, despite the government trying not to release figures and not telling people what is happening on AWAs, even their own candidates are starting to become aware of the impact Work Choices is having on working Australian families.

The Australian people understand this. They understand that if Prime Minister Howard were so sure that AWAs were good for working families he would require that the data be released. Why have you stopped everything since May 2006 when the damning statistics were released by your own Office of the Employment Advocate? Why have you stopped any further information coming out? If you were so sure this is doing good, you would not be frightened, Senator Abetz—through you, Mr Deputy President—of releasing this data. The reality is that the Howard government has simply refused to release information on the impact of its industrial relations changes since May last year.

I think Australians deserve to know what the impact is. I am a South Australian senator. I think South Australians deserve to know the impact of Australian workplace agreements on their wages and conditions. I think all Australians deserve to know that. Why will you not release the information as to what AWAs in my home state of South Australia or, indeed, around the country are doing to workers’ wages and conditions? You do not want to release it because you do not want people to know the truth. The reality is that the government simply wants to hide it.

What is most concerning on this first anniversary is this: we know, because Senator Minchin, a South Australian senator, has let the cat out of the bag previously, that the government wants to go further. We know that Senator Minchin, in front of the HR Nicholls Society, virtually apologised for the fact that these extreme laws did not go far enough. So, one year on, I ask Senator Abetz or anyone else in the government: how much is left? How much more do you want to do? What further unfair changes do you want to try to ram through and impose on Australian working families? What are you going to do to the wages and conditions of South Australians and of all Australians? We already know that Senator Minchin is of the view that the government needs to go further in industrial relations changes and in stripping away fairness from the workplace.

Let us have a look at some of what we do know from Australian Bureau of Statistics information. A report on ABS statistics was released not long ago. The report shows that on average, across the country, workers on AWAs earned three per cent less than workers on collective agreements. When you take out the state of Western Australia, which is obviously doing extremely well economically because of the resources boom, the shortfall is even greater—around 10 per cent. The two major sources of data on the gender pay gap show a recent deterioration in women’s pay relative to men’s, especially in the private sector, with some or all of the gains over the previous decade being lost under Work Choices. It has also been demonstrated that women in permanent full-time jobs are working 1.3 hours more per week if they are on an Australian workplace agreement than if they are on a collective agreement. So they are working longer. But there is more. They are earning five per cent less per week; and when you look at the hourly wage, the shortfall for women on AWAs is about eight per cent and for casuals it is about 17 per cent. It is completely untrue to say that AWAs are good for working women or good for workers who have very little bargaining power. That is the reality. And that is why the government does not want to show the information it could release on the actual impact of AWAs.

Why doesn’t the government do what it should do, and that is come clean with the Australian people? We know that the minister, Joe Hockey, has more than 400 answers from his department to questions put on notice at Senate estimates in November 2006 that are simply sitting on his desk. The department of workplace relations confirmed in February this year that, of the 800 questions asked, 400 answers have been provided but are being held up in the minister’s office. The reality is the government does not want to provide this information.

So let us remind ourselves yet again, one year on, of what we have seen. We know from the government’s own data that AWAs cut wages and conditions. And who can forget some of the cases that have hit the headlines in the last 12 months? One that I particularly remember was the dismissal on the day of the commencement of this legislation of two apprentices in South Australia who were unfairly retrenched. It is referred to in the Adelaide Advertiser today. The only thing protecting them was South Australian industrial laws, the very laws you want to try and override, insofar as they relate to contracts of training. The reality is that what your government has done is undercut wages and conditions, undercut job security, and removed and eroded people’s rights in the workplace. That is the legacy of the Howard government.

We need to cut through all the rhetoric from the other side about Work Choices and look at what the real facts are. We need to think about people like the Spotlight workers; like the Cowra abattoir workers. We need to think about people like Annette Harris, who was told: ‘Here’s the 2c an hour but you lose the rest of your penalty rates and other conditions.’ We need to consider workers such as Michael King at the Hilton IGA, who was told: ‘Either you get a wage-cutting AWA or no job at all.’ And we need to think about the employees at Lufthansa who are up to $50 a week worse off. These are the real stories, the real personal experiences of working Australians one year on. So we can truly say when we look at these and other statistics, but particularly at these personal stories of Australians, that these laws are hurting working Australian families. (Time expired)

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very proud to be a member of the Howard coalition government which introduced Work Choices one year ago today and I would like to wish this evolution—not a revolution—a very happy birthday. For every single individual case that the opposition can drag up, I would like to ask them: why is it that, in the time since Work Choices began, the number of Australian workplace agreements that have been agreed on is 298,499 compared with—I will give you the numbers for the other agreements—employee collective agreements, 2,791; union collective agreements, 2,422; employer greenfields agreements, 458; union greenfields agreements, 227; and multiple business agreements, four? If people are so unhappy with Australian workplace agreements why are they signing up to them in droves?

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

Because they don’t have a choice!

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

They don’t have a choice!

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do have a choice.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong and Senator Wortley!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, Senator Troeth has asked the opposition a question and I am happy to answer that.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Marshall. Senator Troeth has the call.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, given that Senator Marshall has chosen to make a remark through you, may I also do that? I listened in silence to Senator Wong and I would ask the same courtesy from her.

I will tell you why. Australian workers find workplace agreements suit their life balance and the way in which they wish to conduct their lives. As Senator Abetz remarked some time ago, the fact is that some allowances or conditions may be traded off for others so that if you are a working mother and you want particular conditions to allow you to pick up your children from school or from preschool you can trade off some of the other things you have, but there are some things which are non-negotiable. It is very true that we have laid down a fairly inclusive arrangement so that workers can choose the sorts of conditions which suit them. No-one is forced to sign an AWA.

I would like to take in some outside opinions here. For instance, the Business Council President, Mr Michael Chaney, said that all the evidence indicates that Work Choices has been a success to date. He says:

Our view has been all along Work Choices was part of the evolution, not a revolution, started by Labor and continued by the Coalition. It’s just a sensible next step.

For a stronger statement we might go to the Prime Minister. He says:

What on earth is unfair about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 32 years? What is unfair about the fact that we have fewer industrial disputes since 1913? And what is unfair about the fact that real wages continue to grow? The reason that people are critical of WorkChoices; and indeed opposition to WorkChoices is not driven out of concern for workers and their families, although that is the label used by those who attack the Government, it’s not driven out of that. It’s driven out of a desire to re-establish union power over the industrial relations system of this nation.

That is much closer to the truth than anything that the Labor Party can serve up. When the Senate Employment Workplace Relations and Education Committee, of which I am chair, was holding the industrial relations hearings in November of the previous year, you may recall some of the statements that were made. For instance, Mr Kim Beazley, the then Leader of the Opposition, said:

There will be more divorce.

Mr Bill Shorten, now the candidate for Maribyrnong, said there will be a ‘green light for mass sackings’. Ms Julia Gillard said:

... these laws ... are bad for the economy.

You only have to transpose against that the figures I have given on unemployment and on industrial disputes. Mr Tony Upton from the Transport Workers Union said:

This legislation is a direct threat to road safety in this country.

Ms Sharan Burrow said:

Children won’t see their parents for Christmas.

Mr Bill Ludwig, the AWU national president, said:

Our children are going to school with bare feet because parents couldn’t afford shoes.

These sorts of comments have hit a new low. It is a fact that, since the introduction of Work Choices, real wages have increased by 1.5 per cent. On 26 October 2006 the Australian Fair Pay Commission awarded a $27.36 per week wage increase to Australia’s lowest paid workers, and that came into effect on 1 December 2006.

Since March 2006, when Work Choices was introduced, 263,700 new jobs have been created, including 229,200 full-time positions. This is a direct contradiction of the comments of those who argue that Work Choices will lead to the casualisation of the workforce. As we saw, the unemployment rate in February 2007 stood at 4.6 per cent—and I remind the opposition of the 10.9 per cent peak recorded under Labor in December 1992 with their highly centralised wage-fixing system, which was dominated by the unions. Full-time jobs growth—which is where everybody can get a job if they want to—has been the coalition’s hallmark, and there are now 7.4 million Australians in full-time employment. This is a record high of 7,407,000 people. It is no wonder that those on the coalition side are very pleased to have this as their record in government.

In view of Senator Wong’s remarks about how women have faired under Work Choices, there are another couple of points I would like to make. As Senator Wong knows, and as I and many other female workers know, sometimes it is necessary to juggle your job with commitments that you have at home or outside of your job, and Work Choices has been very good in the sense that women can decide what emphasis they will place on certain conditions in their job. The World Economic Forum’s latest Global gender gap report described Australia as a leader in closing the gender gap.

Listening to the opposition, you would think that there are no protections afforded under Work Choices. They know very well that these conditions are protected: (1) parental leave—there is a legislated entitlement to 12 months parental leave; (2) a 38-hour working week plus reasonable additional hours—and there has been a reduction in working hours of 0.7 hours per week in the first six months of the operation of Work Choices; (3) personal and carers leave—there is an entitlement of 10 days leave if you are sick or if a family member requires care and support; (4) annual leave—there is a right to four weeks annual leave; (5) a minimum wage entitlement—no worker can fall below the federal minimum wage of $511.86 per week; and (6) compassionate leave—there is an entitlement to two days compassionate leave in the event of the death of a family member.

When I contrast that with what the opposition presented in its 13 years of government, with its ever increasing, centralised wage fixing and with unions having a stranglehold over the hours people worked, the wages people earned and the way in which they were allowed to work, I am very proud to be part of a coalition government that has eased the constrictions on the workforce in this way. Australia will never prosper unless we adopt flexible working hours and flexible conditions but still protect the right of every worker to earn no less than a minimum wage. That is what this system has set in place. As the Prime Minister has said, if we were to reverse this it would be the first time in 25 years that a major economic reform in this country has been reversed. It would be akin to reversing the progress we have made in trades and tariffs. It would be very negative for investment in this country. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course we expect the government to come out swinging, bringing the ‘bogeyman’ of the union movement out yet again. How scary is that! Then Senator Troeth goes on to quote Michael Chaney as an independent commentator on how ‘effective’ Work Choices has been—a successful businessman. Do you know what I am scared of? I am scared of the big business that is running this country. I am not scared of the union movement, which is looking after workers and trying to find a genuine balance between work life and family life—which is being distinctly and definitely eroded by this legislation.

Let us look at a few of the details. Let us look at the gender pay gap, which has got worse under AWAs. Let us look at the penalty rates that have been taken away under AWAs. Work Choices was supposed to be about productivity, but productivity has dropped by 0.7 per cent. I know that Senator Abetz would not like me to quote from David Peetz, but the fact is that he has done some research that looks at the limited data that is available from AWAs—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t quote from Peetz!

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I knew that would be the reaction. But these are the facts of what is actually occurring in Australia. The gender pay gap is getting worse, not better. Family-work-life balance is getting worse. That is what the research is showing. HREOC has released a report. Relationships Forum Australia have released a report, entitled An unexpected tragedy, which looks at the link between long and unpredictable hours. More than 20 per cent of Australian employees work more than 50 hours per week, 30 per cent regularly work on weekends and 27 per cent work unpredictable hours. Australia has the second highest percentage of casual employees in the OECD. Relationships Forum Australia say that is having an impact on work-family balance. They say there is a link between long and unpredictable working hours and the breakdown of family life. They have been looking at that and the consequent impact on children. Their report noted that the long and unpredictable hours worked by many are making employees unhealthy, putting relationships under extreme stress, creating angry and inconsistent parents and reducing the wellbeing of children. The report concludes:

The cold statistics hide immense human tragedy.

The HREOC report, released only a couple of days before that, looked at the issue of balancing paid work with family and carer responsibilities. A common theme is that, in these times of economic prosperity, many Australians struggle to balance work and family life. Furthermore, HREOC heard from many Australians that they are not able to exercise real choice in their working lives. That is the point. This is ‘Work No Choices’. AWAs are not specifically individualised; they are basically done en masse. Particularly in many of the lower paid fields, you do not get to negotiate to pick up your children at three o’clock. I would like to hear from a wide variety of the Australian community on whether they can negotiate AWAs that would allow them to leave work at three o’clock to pick up their children. That is very, very unlikely, particularly as penalty and award rates have been removed.

Twenty-two per cent of AWAs do not provide for a wage increase in the life of the agreement, which can go up to five years. Compared to the rate of inflation, the total average earnings of full-time adult workers have dropped by 0.6 per cent over the 12 months since the new IR laws came in. For full-time workers in the private sector, average total earnings have dropped by 1.1 per cent. The drop in average earnings for women workers in the private sector is 1.8 per cent. This is not to the benefit of workers; it is directly to the advantage of the employers—the bosses. That is what this law is about. It is not about protecting the work-life-family balance. It is about making things harder for workers.

The two reports from Relationships Forum Australia and HREOC come on top of the report by Barbara Pocock, a well-known academic in the area of labour markets. She has written a well-known book, entitled The Labour Market Ate My Babies, in which she looks at how the modern labour force is having a detrimental impact on children, on youth and on our capacity to care. It talks about the impact of long hours, uncertain work, the intensity of work, the quality of work and how work and caring preferences match up. This is what is having an impact on families. The issue is not whether parents work but the state they are in when they come home from work. Parents are getting more stressed, they are working longer and unpredictable hours and they cannot make plans. Someone told me the other day that they are unable to make plans to go out with their children. They are not told when they will have regular work, so they cannot make arrangements to go out with their children, their friends or their partners. All this has an impact on people’s wellbeing. Work Choices is not delivering. It needs to be repealed. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After just one year of the Howard government’s Work Choices laws, it is clear that these extreme and unfair laws are hurting working Australian families through the erosion of take-home wages and conditions and fewer rights in the workplace. Today marks the one-year anniversary of John Howard’s unfair industrial relations laws. The contest for the election is now defined. If you want John Howard and his unfair laws then you can vote Liberal at the next election. If you want to get rid of these laws there is only one way to do it, and that is to vote Labor.

We know that these unfair laws were the single biggest issue on people’s minds when they voted in the New South Wales election. None other than New South Wales Liberal Pru Goward emphasised their impact. She said, ‘I predict that they will be the single biggest issue on people’s minds when they vote in the federal election.’ This issue is one of the great defining differences between the conservatives and Labor.

The press is full of stories about how these laws are hurting Australian working families. But what about real figures, statistics we can really analyse to look at how well or how badly these laws are treating Australian working families, solid information and analysis? My Senate colleagues and I have pressed hard to get verifiable facts. We have heard grandiose claims that Work Choices gives employees better flexibility and protects conditions, yet, when the figures are made available, what we find is exactly the opposite.

The Howard government was forced to respond to one set of statistics released last year by the Office of the Employment Advocate. It was through the Senate estimates process that the Office of the Employment Advocate provided details of the only analysis of the content of Australian workplace agreements—and that study was conducted by the Office of the Employment Advocate itself. What did that study show? It showed that 100 per cent of AWAs cut at least one so-called protected award condition; 22 per cent of AWAs, some of them lasting for up to five years, provided workers with no pay rise; 51 per cent of AWAs cut overtime loadings; 63 per cent of AWAs cut penalty rates; 64 per cent of AWAs cut annual leave loadings; 46 per cent of AWAs cut public holidays payments; 52 per cent of AWAs cut shift work loadings; 40 per cent of AWAs cut rest breaks; 46 per cent of AWAs cut incentive based payments and bonuses; 48 per cent of AWAs cut monetary allowances; and 36 per cent of AWAs cut declared public holidays. However, after the great embarrassment and political damage this study has caused, the OEA has not done any further analysis of the content of AWAs. I wonder why!

It seems that the government have acknowledged that Work Choices is hurting working Australian families through the erosion of take-home wages, conditions and workplace rights, and that the government would rather have a debate in which there are no verifiable facts. In that way they can never be proved wrong. Senator Abetz would never like the facts to get in the way of grabbing a headline, as he indicated in question time today. It seems that the government would prefer to fly blind when it comes to the impact of Work Choices on the nation’s workers and workplaces.

Through questioning of Office of the Employment Advocate representatives and the minister’s representative in Senate estimates, I have found the following. The government has no way of knowing precisely how many AWAs are in operation. The government currently does not measure or analyse any data on wages and flexible working arrangements in AWAs, even when these arrangements could be beneficial to employees. There is no way of knowing whether an individual Work Choices AWA has replaced an existing AWA and, apart from the information already released by the Office of the Employment Advocate and the ABS, there is currently no way of knowing what may be contained in AWAs individually or by industry.

The government is not monitoring AWAs to establish how conditions are being treated, contradicting what they have said in parliament and to Australian workers. The government has admitted to not painting the full picture and has acknowledged that there should be robust analysis. But there is no project or formal job under way to do this; there is simply a discussion going on within the OEA itself. There has been no direction from any previous or current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to analyse AWAs.

The government is now refusing to answer almost any questions on them. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations confirmed in February this year that, of the 800 questions asked, 400 answers had been provided to the minister but were being held up in the minister’s office. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Joe Hockey, has more than 400 answers from his department to questions put on notice by the opposition at Senate estimates in November 2006, yet he has not provided to the Senate one answer in respect of those 400 questions since February.

Given the government’s bleating about how a detailed analysis cannot be undertaken due to the problems involved, it is almost unbelievable that they have not even asked for it to be done. I say ‘almost unbelievable’ as we must remember that it suits the government not to have any information on this area: they can make whatever pie-in-the-sky claim they like and never be proved wrong.

However, information is still coming from highly regarded sources. According to data from the ABS, a truly independent authority, if we compare the earnings of men on AWAs with those of men on collective agreements, the men on AWAs earn less. If we look at the ABS data for the earnings of women on AWAs compared to those of women on collective agreements, we see women on AWAs do much worse. These are all published ABS statistics that are not capable of being denied.

Recently the ABS released employee hours and earnings data for May 2006. The data indicates that Australian women on Australian workplace agreements are earning less than Australian women on collective agreements. Australian women on AWAs who work full time earn on average $2.30 less per hour, or $87.40 less per week based on a standard 38-hour week, than those on collective agreements. Australian women on AWAs who work as casuals earn $4.70 less per hour, for every hour they work, than those women on collective agreements. These statistics are from May 2006 and therefore largely deal with AWAs entered into pre Work Choices when there was a no disadvantage test applied and before Work Choices allowed the stripping away of so-called protected award conditions. We can only assume, given the only figures we can rely on are from the Office of the Employment Advocate, that by now those figures will be considerably worse given the percentage of stripping away of so-called protected award conditions.

Across Australia, AWA employees’ average hourly earnings were 3.3 per cent lower than those of people on registered collective agreements. These are figures from the ABS, and they cannot be disputed. But what do we hear from the government? In question time today, I heard Senator Abetz being very careful with the language he used. One night in here some time ago, he told me about an old lawyer’s trick that he used to use: when you did not have a case to argue you argued the technicalities. That is what we have seen from the government today. That is what we have seen from the government for the last 12 months on Work Choices.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You want to argue the technicalities because you do not actually have a case to argue about Work Choices.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Marshall, you will direct your remarks through the chair please. Senators on my right will cease interjecting.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that advice, Mr Acting Deputy President. Today Senator Abetz was very careful in his language when he said that since the introduction of Work Choices there have been 260,000 extra jobs created in the Australian economy. He said ‘since the introduction’; he did not say ‘because of the introduction’. Why? We know there is no way the government knows about the impact of Work Choices.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, let us actually look at the employment figures that are on the public record, those produced by the ABS. Let us look at the two years prior to Work Choices. Let us look at employment growth for the first 11 months of Work Choices. It was 2.6 per cent. Since the introduction of Work Choices—Senator Abetz uses very careful language—employment growth has been by 2.6 per cent. But what was it for the two years prior to the introduction of Work Choices? Strangely enough, according to the ABS, employment growth was by 3.9 per cent prior to Work Choices. So, if we actually want to look at the impact of Work Choices, we can argue, based on the statistics that are in front of us, that Work Choices is actually retarding the growth of employment in this country. For those opposite to argue that Work Choices is any way responsible for the growth of employment belies the fact of the massive resources boom that we are having, the insatiable appetite of the rest of the world for our natural resources and the significant natural employment growth that had been happening before that.

Senator Abetz would not want the true statistics. He would not want the Office of the Employment Advocate or anyone else to seriously look at AWAs, because the government want to fly blind and to be able to make grandiose statements about what has happened since the introduction of Work Choices, not because of the introduction of Work Choices. He will use any form of statistics to try to bolster their argument. The problem for the government, Senator Abetz, is that people know and feel and see  that. They know people who are being screwed by Work Choices and are losing their wages, losing their conditions—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Marshall, your—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

losing their shifts—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Marshall!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and getting the choice that Work Choices gives, which is no choice.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Marshall, your time has expired—and you knew that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Abetz, if you want to seek the call you can stand, but I am sure that Senator Barnett is about to stand and seek the call.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to be a member of the Howard government responsible for instigating and passing through this parliament Work Choices one year ago. I say: congratulations and well done to the Howard government and thank you for what has been done and for what you have delivered to Australian men and women and their families throughout this country. As a member of the Senate committee that recommended and supported the legislation over a year ago, it is a very proud honour to be standing here in this Senate chamber to reflect on the last 12 months and, in particular, to respond to some of the accusations and allegations that have been made from the other side.

This morning Unions Tasmania’s Simon Cocker was interviewed on radio by Tim Cox. He was asked, ‘Well, what has the last 12 months brought workers in Tasmania?’ Simon Cocker said, ‘I guess it’s brought proof of everything that we said 12 months ago when this legislation came into effect.’ They were the first words that he shared publicly with the Tasmanian constituents on ABC radio this morning. What exactly were the two main allegations of the Labor Party and the union movement 12 months ago? They said that Work Choices would deliver fewer jobs and lower wages. The Labor Party said there would be fewer jobs and lower wages in addition to a range of other allegations, like the sky would fall in. Well, has it?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like Chicken Little.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right, Chicken Little, Senator Abetz. Let us look at exactly what they said more than 12 months ago. What did Bill Shorten from the AWU, now the Labor candidate for the Victorian seat of Maribyrnong, say about Work Choices?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t that interesting, Senator Nash—the link between the union movement and the Labor Party. What did Bill Shorten say? He said it would be ‘a green light for mass sackings’. What did they say about the effect on wages? Kevin Rudd, the Labor leader, said, ‘It could produce downward pressure on wages.’ Julia Gillard said, ‘Work Choices will drive down wages and productivity.’ They made a whole range of outrageous allegations, and I will mention a couple of them. Kim Beazley said, ‘Mums and dads know that Howard’s industrial relations laws are throwing their kids to the wolves.’ Sharan Burrow said: ‘This is an attack on the lives of working people. It will undermine families.’ She said also that ‘working families’ lives are at risk here.’ Greg Combet said: ‘Work Choices is very nasty legislation. It encourages exploitation, not enterprise.’ He also said, ‘This will put lives at risk.’ Give me a break!

The Australian people know what has occurred in the last 12 months. They can see the facts. I want to share this Latin maxim with the Senate and the Australian public: res ipsa loquitur—that is, let the facts speak for themselves. In the last 12 months the facts have demonstrated that we now have an extra 263,700 new jobs. Senator Marshall says that is really not all due to Work Choices. Of course it is not all due to Work Choices—but surely it is substantially due to Work Choices. He says that those figures do not add up. Let us look at the annual growth in jobs under the coalition compared to the last seven years under Labor. That figure is 185,800 jobs compared to 101,200 jobs. Senator Marshall, please, have a listen and look at the facts. What are the facts?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is Senator Marshall?

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is Senator Marshall? He has left the chamber; he does not want to listen to the facts. You can see that unemployment has gone down to 4.6 per cent, a 30-year record low. What has happened with wages? In the last 12 months we have seen a 1.5 per cent increase in real wages. Under the Howard government there has been a 19 per cent increase in real terms. That is not a cut in wages. That is not downward pressure on wages. That is the exact opposite.

Let us remember what happened in 13 years of Labor. You had a 1.8 per cent decrease in wages. You see, Labor has a plan, and the election will see this out. The Australian people will have a choice between the Labor Party and the coalition. Labor has a plan to rip up AWAs, which have in fact been a part of the Australian landscape since they started in 1997. We have had over a million signed since 1997. The penetration in industry is some eight per cent nationally. In my home state of Tasmania it is 13 per cent. AWAs play a very important part in the Australian economy in terms of providing jobs and higher wages. In fact, in Tasmania, on average people on an AWA are paid 48 per cent more than those on an award. That is a lot of money. You only have one party that is going to the election with a plan to cut wages for those people on an AWA.

We have had a lot of support from industry and community groups with respect to Work Choices. But, before I get onto that, I just want to say that the Labor Party’s second major policy proposal going into the next election is to go back to the old unfair dismissal laws. We tried over 44 times to pass legislation through the parliament to remove those laws, and we were finally successful. We removed them because they were unfair, specifically unfair on Australia’s small businesses. We have not heard very much from the other side with respect to the benefits of Work Choices for small business. There are 1.9 million of them in Australia, and they benefit as a result of the choice available to them and as a result of the flexibility. Those in small business and their employees—full time, casual and part time—benefit.

Small business is going to cop it in the neck under Labor because Labor want to bring back the unfair unfair dismissal laws. These were the laws that scared small business away from employing. In my view, this particular initiative under the Work Choices legislation has resulted in a stimulus for small business to employ more people. That is my strong view. On the unfair dismissal laws, the New South Wales Business Chamber says:

The biggest change has been in small and medium sized businesses ... who no longer fear employing people because of the abuses that used to occur by employees exploiting the unfair dismissal system.

Here you have it: the Labor Party are going to bring back the unfair unfair dismissal laws, and that is scary. There was a rally in Bass, in Launceston, instigated by the union movement. There was a rally in Braddon where the hardworking members Michael Ferguson and Mark Baker are standing up for this government and saying, ‘Thank you for the jobs that have been created in these electorates.’ I stand with them and say this: the union movement are putting $30 million into this campaign; the Labor Party, $20 million. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the Labor Party is doing the bidding for the union movement, and that is a scary prospect indeed. (Time expired)

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been surprised at the volume of negative stories about Work Choices. I have been surprised because so many people do not fall under Work Choices. About a quarter of all workers still fall under the state systems and, of the other 75 per cent, the majority are still under old pre Work Choices collective and individual agreements. So in fact once those people shift over to Work Choices you should expect to see the volume of complaints lift enormously.

The second thing I have been surprised at is the debate over job creation. Since Work Choices came into law, 260,000 jobs have been created. If Work Choices had not come into law, 260,000 jobs would still have been created. I defy anyone from the government side to actually tell us how many jobs Work Choices has created—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because 260,000 jobs would have been created anyway, in my view. Until you can produce the statistics to show otherwise, that is a view I am entitled to hold.

The other thing I wanted to comment on in the brief amount of time I have available to me was a couple of quotes from the Australian today. One was in George Megalogenis’s article. He quotes the following from a Labor person. I thought it was quite an interesting statement of how this debate will play out.

“Howard’s key political tactic in 2001 and 2004 was to go after our base, to go after blue-collar workers, cultivating people who share his socially conservative set of values,” one Labor strategist says. “What this issue does is say to those people: ‘This guy is not on your side, he’s out to screw you and that’s the reason you have to vote Labor.’ After all that work he has done to win over those voters in recent years, this has totally rebranded him as being opposed to ordinary workers.”

What that quote tells you is that this debate is about how people feel, and quoting statistics at them will not interfere with their experience and how they feel about these matters. The other quote I wanted to give you was from Peter Switzer, also in the Australian today. He says:

In sheer weight of numbers, the benefits that the new industrial relations laws give to business look unclear, and possibly light, compared to the fears that it generates for most employees.

Later on he says that 74 per cent of employers said they would make no changes because of Work Choices. In other words, it is not affecting employers’ actions or attitudes that much. Of course, if employers are saying it does not affect how they operate, you cannot claim that the job creation those employers are producing is a result of Work Choices.

Work Choices is radical. It is a radical break with the broad consensus that had previously existed. The act does assault the cultural, economic, social, institutional, legal, political and constitutional underpinnings of past work arrangements in Australia. Of course, the coalition says that this is a good thing. But my problem is still that the economic and social case has not been made for the radical change. It was faith based legislation; it was not evidence based legislation. In my view the contest at the election will come down to how people feel about matters of fairness and whether this government is in fact behaving in a way which will ensure a fair outcome for them in a situation where they are the employee and not the employer.

The question, of course, is what will happen after the election. If Mr Howard wins this election, the government are highly unlikely to change course—and I do not believe we should expect any significant law changes before the election. If, however, Mr Rudd wins, he will look to what parties hold what views. These are the Democrats’ views: we agree that Work Choices has to go and that the essential features of the pre-Work Choices regime must be restored. We agree with having a national unitary system. We believe there must be a national regulator. We would restore a strong, independent Industrial Relations Commission. We would keep statutory individual agreements but abolish the current AWAs. When it comes down to negotiation time, I will be there at the table with Labor trying to work out how we replace this Work Choices regime.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today’s matter of public importance is nothing if not predictable. A year ago the Labor tactics committee put in their parliamentary diary to up the rhetoric to mark the first anniversary of Work Choices. Labor knew it would be difficult to sustain their campaign and that they would need a renewed focus. That is why we are here today. Forget analysis. Forget evidence. That is not the Labor way. The Labor way is to engage in hysteria and ideology. Senator Wong’s motion refers to ‘these extreme and unfair laws’, as if anything other than total union dominance of workplaces is extreme and unfair. Let me give the Labor Party some advice: just because you say something is extreme and unfair does not make it so; it does not mean the public will believe you.

Let us look at the substance of the Labor Party’s claims. Labor’s first assertion is that Work Choices is causing the ‘erosion of take-home wages’. Here are the facts. Under the coalition real wages have grown 19.8 per cent since 1996. Since Work Choices was introduced real wages have increased by 1.5 per cent. What happened under Labor? Real wages actually fell by 1.8 per cent. And take-home wages—what has the coalition done? We have cut income tax—not once, not twice, not three times, but five times. It was cut in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The coalition has grown real wages and cut income taxes, significantly boosting take-home pay. In contrast, the Labor Party failed to deliver on their own promises to cut tax in government, opposed most of our income tax cuts and presided over a decline in real wages.

Labor’s second assertion is that Work Choices is causing the erosion of conditions. Work Choices actually enshrined in law five minimum employment conditions for the first time. All new agreements are required to meet these conditions. In addition, employees are enjoying the enormous flexibility Work Choices allows, in contrast to the one-size-fits-all system the Labor Party and the unions want to impose. This is particularly important for women who are seeking to juggle work and family. Our reforms allow agreements to be struck so that women who might otherwise not be able to work are able to do so.

Labor’s third assertion is that Work Choices is resulting in workers having fewer rights in the workplace. Under the government’s reforms, workers have a right that Labor and the unions would deny them. It is the right to negotiate an individual agreement, and it is a right that well over one million Australians on AWAs have exercised. Despite the fact that these million-plus Australians are happy with their AWAs, Labor want to rip them up, throwing the arrangements of over a million Australian workers and thousands of employers into turmoil. Workers have a fundamental right to freedom of association in the workplace, and the coalition want to support that.

The Labor Party say that Work Choices is unfair. Let me remind Labor of what their colleague Tony Blair said on ascension to office:

Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.

Mr Rudd likes to portray himself as some sort of Australian incarnation of Tony Blair—moderate, pro-business, the great liberator of the ALP, freeing it from union domination, establishing a bold new Labor. There is a big difference between Tony Blair and Kevin Rudd. Tony Blair actually embraced the Thatcher industrial relations reforms, which went much further than our modest and fair reforms. Yet Kevin Rudd cannot even bring himself to embrace our modest reforms. He is no Tony Blair.

You cannot just look at Kevin Rudd’s mild persona. You cannot just look at what Labor say. You have to look at what Labor do. And what they do is put former ACTU presidents into parliament—Ferguson, George and Crean—and possibly an ACTU secretary on the way. Greg Combet is currently circling seats in Newcastle. John Roberts does not want him to enter parliament just yet. Poor Greg. He looks at Ferguson, George and Crean and he thinks, ‘It’s fair enough for the former presidents to get a gig in parliament; why not the secretaries?’ And you can understand Greg’s thinking—‘I ran the show, I’m the leader of the Labor movement, I’ve been running the opposition to Work Choices for a year, I’ve drafted the ALP legislation and they won’t even give me a seat in parliament!’ We should also spare a thought for the member for Charlton, who is facing an impending unfair dismissal.

The truth is that Australian workplaces are a lot fairer now than when Labor left office. Under this government, over two million new jobs have been created and unemployment is at 4.6 per cent, down from the peak of 10.9 per cent under Labor. It was still at 8.2 per cent when they left office. I note that, since the introduction of Work Choices, unemployment has dropped below five per cent.

But credit where it is due. At least Senator Wong’s MPI is not as hysterical as the MPIs of some of her colleagues. I had the fortune to watch Kevin Rudd’s MPI earlier today on TV and, watching some of his tortured analogies and attempts at humour, I could only imagine how his colleagues feel when he tries them out in the party room.

Let us briefly recap what the Nostradamuses of the Australian Labor Party and the union movement predicted about Work Choices. Kim Beazley said, ‘There will be more divorce.’ Bill Shorten said it would be a ‘green light for mass sackings’. Julia Gillard said the laws would be ‘bad for the economy’. Janet Giles from Unions SA said Work Choices ‘is a pact with the devil’. Tony Upton from the Transport Workers Union said that our reforms are ‘a direct threat to road safety in this country’. Sharan Burrow said, ‘Children won’t see their parents for Christmas.’ Bill Ludwig said, ‘Our children are going to school with bare feet because parents couldn’t afford shoes.’

If you believe the hellfire and brimstone preachers in the Labor Party, Work Choices has turned Australia into a nation of children of divorced and jobless parents who have been forced to deal with Satan. They have to dodge cars on unsafe roads on their way to school, without shoes, and they will not have Christmas presents in December. It hardly needs to be stated that these claims are not just wrong, they are plain bizarre. The Labor prophecy of doom and gloom is wrong. Under this government we have taken the tough decisions, decisions which have not always been popular, but we have always pursued the national interest. Australia cannot afford an Australian Council of Trade Unions government.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First agrees that the government’s workplace changes have had a negative impact on some Australian families. That is exactly why Family First voted against the changes that were introduced in July 2005. Family First did not need a New South Wales election to tell us what was going on. The polls were saying before the election that it was the No. 1 issue, and Family First predicted that the workplace changes would have a negative impact on some Australian families.

But Family First intends to do more than just talk about the problems. Family First is actually going to do something. Family First is introducing a private senator’s bill to protect families, and we look forward to the support of both the coalition and the Labor Party for our legislation.

Back when Work Choices was passed, Family First took a different position to the government. The government saw workplace relations as part of economic policy. Family First saw it as part of family policy. Family First voted against the changes because they undermined family life by forcing workers to fight for what was previously guaranteed: their public holidays, meal breaks, penalty rates and overtime. People in Australia today can work on a public holiday and legally not have to be paid a cent more and legally not have to be given a day off in lieu. That is un-Australian. We can improve this flawed legislation and make life better and fairer. The government says that there are no problems. The opposition says wait until the election. Family First says let us do something now; let us get on with it and fix this legislation by giving back to Australian workers and their families what they have previously been guaranteed.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the debate has expired.