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 behalf of the opposition on the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. The government announced this legislation because it needed a quick political fix to a problem called Work Choices. We know this legislation is only about a quick political fix because the government drafted its political advertising even before it drafted this bill. The government has admitted this. This legislation is not about fixing the inherent unfairness in Work Choices; it is about fixing what the government calls the ‘perception’ in the Australian community that this government is arrogant and out of touch and that its Work Choices laws are unfair.

The government senators who reviewed this bill agreed in their report. They said, ‘The legislation is aimed at assuaging concerns which have emerged in the community’—about Work Choices. It is because this government needed a quick fix to a political problem called Work Choices that the Senate was forced yet again to hold a one-day token inquiry—a Clayton’s inquiry, the inquiry you have when you do not want an inquiry—into legislation that will affect every employer and employee covered by the government’s Work Choices laws and that again increases the regulatory and red-tape burden on business.

This bill makes an already opaque workplace relations system absolutely muddy and interminable. It adds further complexity, confusion and chaos for Australian employers and employees. The arrogance of this government is breathtaking. It is so intent on making sure it has a quick political fix to the problem of Work Choices that it does not seem to mind yet again adding to the mound of legislation representing its supposedly simpler industrial relations system. In fact, as employers and employees know, this system is anything but simple. And, because this government needed a quick fix to a political problem called Work Choices, here we are again in this place debating yet another round of amendments which the government is rushing through and which were drafted at the last minute, debated at short notice and designed solely for a political fix. But make no mistake: this short-term political fix has long-term consequences for all Australians, workers and businesses. The government has, in effect, manufactured a reason for introducing yet another round of multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded political advertising in the lead-up to the election, which it calls an information campaign about the so-called fairness test but which, so far, has not mentioned a fairness test at all—and the campaign was in fact developed before the fairness test was even announced.

Let us be clear about what we know of the government’s advertising. We know that $55 million was spent on Work Choices mark 1. We also have on the public record $36.5 million having been flagged to be spent on Work Choices mark 2, and I note that the government are yet to come clean on how much will actually be spent and whether the $36.5 million figure, which has been in the public arena, is correct. So far they have not said that it was not. We also know that, over a six- or seven-day period after the Prime Minister’s quick political fix announcement, the government spent about $25,000 an hour in the first week of this campaign advertising this so-called fairness test.

And, as the minister has recently confirmed, not satisfied with wasting taxpayers’ money on political advertising on industrial relations, the government now wants to add amendments to this bill to force employers to hand out government propaganda to every employee within the next three months. Who needs volunteers to help with election campaigning when you are requiring every employer in the country to hand out political propaganda for the Howard government on industrial relations? But, whilst this government can find a quick fix to the political problem called Work Choices, it is a real shame that we will never see the Howard government find a genuine fix to the real problems caused by its extreme Work Choices legislation.

In the six weeks since the government announced this bill, over 30,000 AWAs have been made. Because this government needed a quick fix to a political problem called Work Choices, those 30,000 Australian employers and employees who have made AWAs since 7 May have been left in the dark with no guidance about how to comply with laws, because these laws were not even drafted until a fortnight ago.

It is clear that this is not a government that believes in fairness at work. Those of us who participated in or listened to the first Work Choices debate will well remember that this government in this chamber voted against a range of things which it is now trying to turn around. It voted against the principle of fairness. Let us be clear: time and again amendments were moved by Labor in this place and, I think, also by some of the minor parties, which sought to—

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

Forty pages of amendments were guillotined.

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

Forty pages of amendments were guillotined, Senator Murray reminds me. I recall getting 336 amendments some 30 minutes before the committee stage commenced, but that is another issue.

Time and again in this place the government voted in that debate against putting the principle of fairness in the legislation. In fact, I recall Senator Abetz making some interesting comments during that time. When we were trying to ask him to justify this, Senator Abetz said, on page 50 of the Hansard:

You could have fairness without actually saying it.

Clearly, you could not have had a modicum of fairness, because now you have bowled up with a bill that has ‘fairness’ in it, in an attempt to try to deal with your political problem that is Work Choices. Senator Abetz also said:

Very briefly, it is implicit in what the parameters are. To use fancy words to say that as a result of putting in the word ‘fair’ it somehow will or will not make it fair will not necessarily assist anyone in this debate.

What a ridiculous contribution to this chamber! What a ridiculous contribution, particularly in the light of what you are now doing, which is seeking to put some words about fairness into this rotten piece of legislation. Let us also remember that in that debate this government voted not only against fairness but against the protection of penalty rates, against the protection of meal breaks and against pay equity. Who can forget that? Pay equity is the principle that you should have equity between different types of jobs, and it entitles women to earn the same wage for work of equal value. The government voted against that, and then bowls up here and try and convince the Australian people, through these amendments, that this is a political fix to all the problems that its Work Choices legislation introduced.

This is not a government that believes in fairness at work. This is a government operating with a simple and arrogant approach to governing this country: pollsters first, advertising second and policy third. That is what this bill is all about: pollsters first, advertising second and policy third. This bill is not about the Howard government listening to the Australian people; it is about the government listening to its pollsters. It is not about tough decisions, conviction and the national interest; it is about politics—first, second and third. It is not about the government providing fair compensation for employees; it is about the Howard government hiding the unfairness of its legislation until after the next election.

The reality is that since this Prime Minister secured control of this chamber he has changed. The arrogance which came with that power has caused the Prime Minister to betray the Aussie battlers he always claimed to represent. Mr Howard could have created a workplace relations system built on fairness and balance and on protecting vulnerable workers, but instead he fell under the spell of implementing his lifelong obsession to impose his extreme views about industrial relations on the Australian people. Let us not forget that it was Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Government in this place, who came out with some honest statements about the government’s real plans. The government’s real plans are nothing to do with reintroducing fairness. That is just a political fix to get you through to the next election. Senator Minchin made it very clear, in March 2005, when he said 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 reform.

In other words, Senator Minchin did not think the Work Choices legislation went far enough. That is the real agenda. The only reason we have some words about fairness being introduced into the Work Choices legislation now is that the government knows it has a political problem.

The Australian people are not going to be fooled by this. When the Prime Minister says he is not for turning on the fundamentals of Work Choices he is actually being truthful. This is his creation. It is his political labour of love, and he wants it to continue. As I said, we know from Senator Minchin, and from comments by the Treasurer and others, that the government actually wants to go further in industrial relations. What none of the government really wants—unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to it—is a fairness test. That is why we saw Mr Costello refusing to rule out removing the test we are currently debating, until after the election. And that is why we have this quick political fix. We have the spectacle of this government no longer using the words ‘Work Choices’ because they have become a hated name of its hated laws. And, as I said, this government continues to use taxpayer funds to try and fix its political problems through advertising.

Finally, what does the government do? It brings this bill into parliament. It is the Prime Minister’s way of pretending to fix Work Choices without really fixing it. Minister Hockey does the same. He has been saying for months that there is no methodology to determine whether employees on Work Choices AWAs are better off, because of the need to compare apples with apples, but he found a methodology quick smart when the polls and the Prime Minister demanded it. For a bill that is supposed to be about fairness, it is interesting that the government could only bring itself to mention the word ‘fair’ five times in 83 pages of new laws.

We know the Prime Minister is a clever politician, but the fact is that this is a quick political fix, not a real fix. And that fact is made clear by asking one simple question: does anyone in this chamber, or any Australian, actually believe this bill would be before this parliament if this were not an election year? Of course it would not be. The electorate will judge the Prime Minister’s motives and his quick political fix later this year. The task for the opposition is to judge this bill. Any cogent analysis of the bill shows that the so-called fairness test within it is a fake fairness test. It will not bring Australians the fairness that they have lost, because of the extreme nature of the Work Choices legislation. The only way to do that is the Labor way—by ripping up Work Choices and ending unfair Australian workplace agreements.

But Labor supported this bill in the House, and we will do so in the Senate. Work Choices is inherently unfair, but if there is a chance that this bill will make a difference to one worker in Australia in the interim we will support it. If a low-paid worker is offered an AWA this afternoon, and that AWA takes away all 11 of their protected award conditions—like overtime and penalty rates—for no monetary or non-monetary compensation, then this bill might just stop that AWA. But let us make no mistake: this does nothing to alter the inherent unfairness of Work Choices and its key objective, which is to cut workers’ pay and conditions.

However, this bill fails resoundingly in many other areas. The hundreds of thousands of workers who have already signed up to unfair AWAs and who have received no compensation for losing these conditions get nothing from this bill. Since Work Choices commenced, workers who have been offered AWAs which took away protected award conditions without any compensation—like the AWAs for the workers at Spotlight or the AWAs for the casuals at Darrell Lea—will get nothing from this bill. The bill will not produce any fair outcome for Australian workers who have lost other important award conditions such as rostering protection, redundancy or long service leave entitlements. Under the government’s new test, these employees will not be entitled to these award conditions or to any compensation in lieu of them. In fact, if they are offered these basic entitlements, which used to form part of the safety net for workers in this country, they will now be considered as fair compensation for the loss of other award conditions such as penalty rates and overtime. Effectively, workers have to trade one set of conditions against another. In the words of Orwell: some award conditions are apparently more equal than other award conditions.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason interjecting—

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

I am glad you enjoyed that analogy, Senator Mason. Think of a mother working in a retail shop under the Victorian shops award. Under normal circumstances, this working mother would receive at least 14 days notice of a change in her roster—a protection which means that the mother has the time and the certainty to arrange child care when her shifts change. In an emergency the notice period is reduced to 48 hours, which is still enough time for the mother to arrange something. However, if this hardworking mother were offered an AWA today, that standard award protection could be stripped away from her and the government’s test will do nothing to protect her. Indeed, if she is provided with this notice period, it might even be considered to be fair compensation for the loss of other protected award conditions, particularly as the reason may be that it is of benefit to her because of her family responsibilities.

The bill may also jeopardise the job security of those employees whose family circumstances mean that they need to work certain hours. This is set out in section 346M(3) of the bill, which states:

... In considering whether a workplace agreement provides fair compensation to an employee ... the Workplace Authority Director may also have regard to the personal circumstances of the employee ... including in particular the family responsibilities of the employee ...

This is the first time in the nation’s history that our personal circumstances can determine our worth at work. Does that mean that it will be fair for an employee with children who says that they would prefer to work on Saturday, because their partner is home, not to be paid penalty rates but to work side by side with workers who are being paid penalty rates? Who assesses the impact of these personal circumstances?

The bill and the EM suggest that this is solely at the discretion of the Workplace Authority. The authority receives details from the employer or employee, but there is no mechanism outlined in the bill to ensure that this will occur objectively and without prejudice. Furthermore, do Australians really want details of their personal circumstances forwarded to a big, Canberra based bureaucracy and weighed up by bureaucrats who do not even have to talk to them? As we consider more examples like these and introduce more factors into the test, the more the process becomes engulfed in secrecy.

The bill sets up a secretive, unwieldy and unreviewable process for the Workplace Authority to unilaterally determine whether an agreement is fair. The authority is not required to give reasons for how it assesses the monetary value of something provided to an employee, what it thinks of an employee’s work situation or their personal circumstances or how these considerations are relevant. It is not even required to give reasons for how it reached a decision that an agreement is unfair. This deficiency was highlighted before the Senate inquiry, and I sure that some of my colleagues will speak on it.

There is no right of appeal for any of these matters, unless Australian employers and employees want to go to the High Court. Of course, that is beyond the capacity of most employees. Government senators on the committee knew of these concerns and concluded that the need for speedy decision making should overcome amendments to ensure that a so-called fairness test was applied in a fair way. Again, political expediency won out. The bill sets no time limit on the Workplace Authority to tell employers and employees whether the test is going to be applied, what the designated award might be and whether their agreement even passes the test. In effect, it creates a system where employers and employees can be left in the wilderness for weeks or months, not knowing whether their agreements, which are already in operation, are lawful.

Frankly, the bureaucracy and the expenditure that come with this bill are unbelievable. According to the EM, the government will spend an additional $370.3 million on the implementation of the so-called fairness test. The Workplace Ombudsman will receive an additional $64.1 million, and DEWR will receive an additional $2.7 million. From the Senate estimates process, we learnt that, as at the end of May, in excess of 20,000 agreements had been lodged and that these will be subject to the test. We are going to see a massive increase in bureaucracy in order to consider this backlog of agreements, which is a result of the government’s hasty political announcement prior to the bill passing through the Senate.

Let us be clear: under Labor, Work Choices will go—lock, stock and barrel. There is no fixing this legislation; it is rotten to the core. We will build an industrial relations system based on balance and fairness. If by chance this bill helps even one worker exist at the extremity of the operations of the government’s extreme legislation, we will not stand in its way in helping them. These workers need all the help we can give them, but we believe in fairness at work every day and that employees deserve their pay and conditions to be protected every day. We believe those protections should not be stripped back, undermined and lied about by the federal government. When Labor say that we will protect conditions, unlike the Howard government, we actually mean it.

In the time between now and the election, there is no choice for Australian workers. However, at the next election Labor will give Australian working families a clear choice to reject these unfair laws and to support the introduction of an industrial relations system based on balance and fairness—and fairness not just in name but in substance. Today we will give those of you in the Senate a choice. On behalf of the opposition, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate condemns the Government’s lack of honesty about:

        (a)    its plans for extreme industrial relations laws before the last election;

        (b)    the impact of its inherently unfair Work Choices laws including the way these laws have:

              (i)    caused the pay and conditions of individuals on Australian Workplace Agreements to be cut,

             (ii)    allowed good workers to be dismissed for no reason at all,

            (iii)    placed an unprecedented paperwork burden on small businesses, and

            (iv)    destroyed the independent industrial umpire;

        (c)    the cost of the taxpayer polling research which apparently led the Government to dropping the term ‘Work Choices’ and bringing this bill to the Senate;

        (d)    the magnitude of the taxpayer funded advertising campaign to promote the Government’s political spin on industrial relations;

        (e)    the fact that this bill leaves Australians still overwhelmingly exposed to the harshness of Work Choices; and

         (f)    its intention to legislate even harsher laws if re-elected”.

Later, at the committee stage, we will offer that choice. Labor cares about employees in this country every day, not just in the days leading up to the election. (Time expired)

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

The Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007 will amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which became Work Choices after the act’s radical transformation at the end of 2005. The bill is ostensibly to strengthen the safety net and protections for employees. The common perception is that this change is not driven by conviction or a sense of fairness but by fear of the coalition losing the 2007 federal election because of Work Choices. The bill has been widely viewed as a cynical attempt by the government to improve its standing in the opinion polls.

The most obvious problem with the Stronger Safety Net Bill is that it seeks to build onto a legislative house that has unsafe and shaky foundations. The main structure is faulty, and add-ons cannot alter that fact. The bill sets up a fairness test for workplace agreements and sets up two statutory agencies: the Workplace Authority, which replaces the Employment Advocate, and the Workplace Ombudsman, which replaces the department’s Office of Workplace Services. The proposed amendments are: to ensure that fair compensation be provided in lieu of any modification or exclusion of protected award conditions that apply to employees; to establish the Workplace Authority director and the Workplace Ombudsman as statutory office holders and create the office of the Workplace Ombudsman and the Workplace Authority as statutory agencies; to establish a compliance framework to ensure the effective operation of the fairness test; to provide additional protections for employees when protected award conditions are modified or removed or an agreement fails the fairness test; to clarify and simplify the provisions prohibiting bargaining service fees; and to remove the requirement that federally registered organisations have a majority of members in the federal workplace relations system in order to become registered or remain registered.

Although the government claims that the fairness test will guarantee fair compensation to workers who trade off conditions, significant concerns were expressed in evidence to the committee. However, the test is a modest advance on the present system. It was clear when Work Choices was rammed through the Senate in December 2005 that this coalition government had ridden roughshod over the rights and conditions of many Australian workers and, not only that, it was clearly enjoying the ride. The coalition is and was driven by an antagonism to union power, because the coalition sees the unions as inseparable from its Labor political foes. That drives its political objective.

But the coalition also had—and it still has—a policy objective. At the heart of the coalition’s agenda was a belief that it was good economics to increase the profit share and decrease the wage share and to give employers greatly increased leverage in the employment contract. To achieve that, workers had to be made more vulnerable, not just to exploitation but in the sense of having less power. The speed with which, and the extent to which, some employers have taken advantage of the new imbalance in the industrial relations system to strip back core workers’ entitlements has been alarming. There are numerous anecdotal reports highlighted in the media about workers being offered unfair agreements and told they could ‘take it or leave it’. The coalition has taken fright at the political effect of its economic agenda. It has been reminded by the Australian people that there are many millions more workers than bosses—hence this bill.

The erosion of protections for workers commenced in March 2006, when Work Choices became law. Work Choices undermines the principle of a fair go for workers. Fundamentally, these laws attack the historic principle of Australian workers doing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay and being able to bargain to achieve that. By so doing they attack the very foundation and nature of our egalitarian Australian society.

There are numerous anecdotal reports highlighted in the media about workers now being offered unfair agreements and told to ‘take it or leave it’. To now argue that Australia’s low unemployment figures and strong economy do in fact justify this policy and are directly the result of the Work Choices reforms is just plain wrong. The jobs produced since March 2006 are not all because of Work Choices. We have all noted the language technique the coalition use in praising the job growth since 2005. They use the word ‘since’, meaning for it to be understood as ‘because of’ Work Choices. It is not because of Work Choices. Jobs growth is not a sudden change because of Work Choices. Welcome as it is, the fall in unemployment is essentially a continuation of the positive downward trend pre Work Choices, which has many causes. Principal amongst them are the resource boom and a strong Australian economy, coupled with strong global growth. Those are the main contributors to jobs growth and economic prosperity, not Work Choices.

Fifteen months on, Mr Howard now presents himself as a listener who is responding to public opinion. He has already spent millions of taxpayers’ dollars on advertising telling us he is listening—advertising that, I might say, with respect to this bill, not only borders on fiscal impropriety but is also in contempt of parliamentary processes, as it preceded the legislation now subject to parliamentary debate. This bill would not have been necessary had the coalition not dismissed and vilified the arguments of those who warned them of the perils of their unamended Work Choices proposals.

The disgracefully brief 2005 Senate inquiry into this bill clearly brought to the government’s attention that, among other matters, workers would be unfairly disadvantaged if the award system was uncoupled from Australian workplace agreements. It also stressed that if the pre Work Choices global no-disadvantage test was abolished there would be profound effects for workers.

In essence, the government left itself exposed to attack by grossly overplaying the economic benefits and underplaying the social costs to Australian workers and their families. The sensible small ‘1’ liberal advocacy of the merits of choice, flexibility and freedoms for workers and employers was badly compromised by a clumsy, hostile takeover of state systems, a mangle of over-regulation and red tape, and an ideological determination to maximise profits at the expense of wages.

If the government loses office because of Work Choices, part of the blame will lie with the failure of government senators to provide a steadying influence on an adamant and ideologically driven Prime Minister and his executive. The government senators did have the evidence before them, and they did not respond to it in the main. Had Mr Howard listened back in 2005 when serious concerns were raised about the unfair nature of Work Choices, he could have avoided the current fallout. Because the coalition did not listen then, their credibility and motive for introducing the fairness test is now under attack.

The government’s claim that this bill will restore the rights lost by working Australians under Work Choices is misleading. Addressing just one element of Work Choices cannot remedy the act as a whole. The Democrats are of the opinion that the fairness test does not go far enough to establish an adequate safety net for workers. It has a number of fundamental deficiencies. First, the proposed safety net excludes large proportions of workers. The ACTU estimates that around 2½ million workers will be excluded from protection because the test only comes into operation prospectively from 7 May 2007. This figure includes those workers already on registered AWAs and agreements since Work Choices came into operation—apparently around 961,000 workers. To lock them out from any monetary or other compensation for the remaining years of the employment contract is grossly unfair. The bill entrenches and promotes unfairness towards those workers with inferior rights under Work Choices up until May 2011. Also excluded will be those who earn more than $75,000 annually—about 1.14 million workers—if they sign an Australian workplace agreement. The inquiry pointed out that this cap could exclude key sectors and industries such as teachers and IT workers, many of whom would otherwise enjoy award protections under the old system. Also, as the limit is to be applied pro rata for part-time workers, many of these workers earning well under $75,000 will miss out. Additionally, as the cap incorporates casual loading, a casual worker attracting an annual salary of $62,501 would also miss out on the test. Arguably, there should be no cut-off at all.

A concerning exclusion raised during the hearing was that employees on NAPSAs would only be covered by the fairness test if they had been on these agreements immediately preceding the making of a workplace agreement when Work Choices was introduced. This is completely contrary to the supposed intent of the provisions, which is to ensure employees traditionally covered by industries usually regulated by an award have appropriate protection. Additionally, award-free workers will also not be covered by the test, which could exclude at least 1.16 million employees. In essence, an award must be a federal one, which would exclude many workers. The bill also excludes those regulated or underpinned by a state award. I remind the chamber that up to 25 per cent of workers are still under some state systems. Another deficiency is that the new test fails its claim of fairness by not covering all existing award conditions when determining compensation, even if they were to be viewed globally as a whole, as with the pre-Work Choices no disadvantage test. This problem was overwhelmingly raised during the inquiry into this bill.

A range of award and/or statutory entitlements could still be bargained away because they fall outside the category of ‘protected award conditions’. For instance, long service and paid maternity leave could be removed from employment agreements with no compensation. Also not included are limitations on rostering, including minimum shift lengths and limitations on working more than one shift per day. Further, the right to request flexible working hours to assist with family responsibilities are not protected. Of particular concern is that redundancy or retrenchment pay entitlements are not covered. Even if these provisions in terminated agreements were allowed to remain in effect for up to five years, there is no guarantee that such pay could be included in a subsequent agreement and, if removed, there would be no compensation payable. Again, this highlights the dangers in the broader Work Choices legislation as there have been examples of workers unfairly dismissed for so-called rather than genuine ‘operational reasons’.

The third deficiency is the problem of there being no independent umpire to administer the ‘fairness test’. The two new statutory bodies to be created—the Workplace Authority and the Workplace Ombudsman—will only be answerable to the minister. The Workplace Authority will replace the Employment Advocate and will be responsible for assessing the test. Its decisions will not be transparent and they will be made in private. Of even more concern is that there is no requirement for reasons to be given for decisions, and decisions will not be reviewable. This is a breach of natural justice and seems to be inconsistent with the claims of fairness. The lack of details provided for the Workplace Authority is worrying. Concerns were raised in the inquiry from employers and unions about what fair compensation would be and how it would actually be calculated. Without such details, the authority will end up vulnerable to allegations of inconsistency and suspicions about its competency or its motives. This lack of clear guidelines at this stage raises questions of just how genuine the government is in its attempt to provide workers protection for the loss of entitlements. Indeed, it can be argued that the fairness test actually provides an escape route for a number of employers who undercompensate.

The second statutory body provided for under the bill is the Workplace Ombudsman, which will replace the Office of Workplace Services. It will supposedly offer additional protection for workers by ensuring employers comply with their obligations. However, the term ‘ombudsman’ is being corrupted here as by definition an ombudsman should be a body or person independent from government. To ensure a genuine, fair and balanced approach in applying the test, it is essential there be a role for an independent umpire to scrutinise workplace agreements. The independent employment rights legal centre, Job Watch, was right to point out in their submission that:

… the Fairness Test is a poor substitute for the no disadvantage test which, prior to the WorkChoices changes, was applied by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Office of the Employment Advocate … before collective agreements could be certified and AWAs could be approved.

Work Choices is badly flawed. Work Choices is unfair and it has to go. The Democrats support that approach. As yet, however, the alternative offered by Labor is far from clear. Turning to the coalition: should they win the election, people should understand they will have a mandate for this legislation and they will have a mandate to further tighten the IR screws. But even if they did that, that will still not be enough because, looking into the future, how on earth are the coalition going to make this complex overregulated system simpler? How on earth are they going to make it work?

It is clear that Australian workers need a new deal, one that gives them clear direction. We Democrats have a very clear idea of what we think needs to be done. We have our long experience in this area to draw on. One advantage we do have is that we are not beholden to unions, and we are not beholden to business. We are in the business of trying to strike a balance. Our plan comprises reforms that would deliver productivity, efficiency, jobs growth and competitive gains. And it would do so in accord with the values and goals of a progressive First World society. We need to end the complexity and confusion of having six industrial relations systems across state borders, which we still do have. We need to end the system that we have whereby the states, to try and restore fairness, are chipping away at the fabric of the edifice that has been constructed. What Australia needs is for the federal and state governments to cooperate in introducing a single and genuine national unitary system comprising four essential elements.

The first element is the setting up of a single, strong, independent industrial relations commission that would absorb the state industrial relations commissions into one national commission. It should be appointed on merit and take up the determination functions of the federal Employment Advocate, now to be the Workplace Authority, and the Fair Pay Commission. It should have the restored powers to ratify, vary and determine awards and agreements and to resolve disputes.

The second element would be to set up a well-resourced, national, strong and independent workplace regulator that would absorb the regulatory functions of state departmental inspectorates. It would also take up the regulatory functions of the Employment Advocate, Office of Workplace Services—now the Workplace Authority and Workplace Ombudsman—and the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The third element would be the provision of a genuine safety net. It would have a fair and balanced minimum wage awarded annually; it would have at least eight minimum conditions for all workers, whether on statutory or common-law agreements; and it would have national or industry based simplified awards with at least 16 allowable matters.

The fourth and last element would be the provision of a genuine flexible bargaining system that would have a mix of industrial instruments available. It would have union and non-union agreements, it would have collective and individual agreements and it would have statutory and common-law agreements. This system would also enshrine the right to collectively bargain in good faith and would enshrine freedom of association.

Importantly, it would abolish Work Choices AWAs and replace them with statutory individual agreements with a global no disadvantage test referenced back to the relevant award. We would replace Work Choices AWAs with individual agreements ticked off by the Industrial Relations Commission and underpinned by a real no disadvantage test and the relevant award. Statutory agreements would be regulated so that they did not exploit workers. We would also support common-law agreements.

The Democrats have always been modernisers in the field of industrial relations. We have followed clear principles. We supported the important advances made by the first wave of the Keating Labor industrial relations reforms in 1993. We also supported the second wave of coalition industrial relations reforms in 1996, but to those we were able to negotiate 176 fair and balanced changes to swing them back from the Right to the Centre. Unfortunately we did not have the opportunity to do that with Work Choices. We did not support the flawed legislation that is Work Choices. We will join the opposition in supporting the Stronger Safety Net bill because we do think something fairer is better than nothing at all. I do hope, however, that it will be amended to strengthen it.

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

Work Choices is bad law and it is bad policy. Work Choices has proven to be a disaster for many in the community, with the supposed economic benefits proving to be more spin than reality. One of the most objectionable and detrimental aspects of Work Choices is Australian workplace agreements and their undermining of collective bargaining. I do not think it is necessary to go over all the statistics and data that have so conclusively shown that, since Work Choices became law, AWAs have been used to exploit employees; in particular the most vulnerable in our society—young workers and women.

Of all the data, both official and leaked, that has shown how AWAs have ripped penalty rates, overtime rates, public holiday pay and rest breaks away from employees, I find the wages data the most telling. In a time—as we are so constantly reminded by the government—of unprecedented economic growth, wages for significant sections of the workforce are going backwards in real terms. The research into the wages of women on AWAs tells a sorry story. The gender pay gap is growing significantly for non-managerial women on AWAs and, what is more, these employees are also experiencing a deterioration in their real wage. There really is no question that women are significantly disadvantaged in a system where primacy is given to individual bargaining. These are the employees who need to be protected by a robust and effective safety net, not this flimsy, full-of-holes political stunt. More perniciously, AWAs are used to deny employees the right and, indeed, the ability to get together collectively to bargain with their employer. In fact, AWAs are used not to enable flexibility for employees, as the government suggests, but to disenfranchise employees in their workplaces.

It is remarkable to reflect just how far Australia lags behind countries such as Canada in protecting the fundamental rights of workers. At the same time as we in the Australian parliament are debating the government’s flawed so-called fairness test for AWAs, the Canadian Supreme Court has recognised that the right of employees to collectively bargain is a fundamental human right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The contrast could not be more stark. While other nations around the world protect the fundamental rights of people to bargain collectively, Australia’s laws, in particular AWAs, directly undermine such rights. The Canadian Supreme Court recognised that the right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers. It is exactly these attributes that Work Choices denies to many employees.

There is a clear and fundamental difference in how the different sides of politics view the idea of a safety net. The Greens believe in a strong and effective award safety net for all employees—not in a narrow, gap-filled safety net that lets through more people and conditions than it catches. We are seeing with Work Choices the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ of the award safety net that has been protecting Australian employees for decades. The government would like nothing more than for awards to disappear forever. While this fairness test resuscitates some parts of awards, we have no faith that awards will remain if the government is returned at the next election.

Another aspect of the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007, and indeed of the whole of Work Choices, which goes against the grain of the government rhetoric of ‘a simpler, fairer system’ is the outrageously complicated and time-consuming regulation and bureaucracy this law requires. We have been told that 800 staff will now be working at the Workplace Authority applying this test. On the figures presented to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education committee hearing into this bill about the number of agreements that need to be considered, we have no faith that the test will be applied in a rigorous and timely manner. This will inevitably leave both employees and employers in an untenable position.

The Australian Greens do not believe this bill should be passed in its current form. The bill does not achieve the objective of providing a fair safety net for employees. While it may be said that the bill provides a stronger safety net, that is only true because the current safety net is so weak. Of the many deficiencies in the bill, the main ones relate to the coverage of the fairness test, the application of the test and the lack of transparency in decision making. There are too many employees who will not have the fairness test applied to their agreements for it to be considered in any way fair. These employees include all those who signed a workplace agreement between 27 March 2006 and 7 May 2007, all those whose full-time equivalent earnings are more than $75,000 and all those whose work is not usually covered by a federal award. The Greens see no justification for these arbitrary exemptions from the fairness test. While we realise it would be a lengthy task to assess all the workplace agreements lodged prior to 7 May 2007, it is unreasonable for the government to acknowledge by introducing this bill that there have been employees worse off under such workplace agreements and yet to provide no remedy at all. AWAs can last up to five years, so someone who signed an AWA on 6 May 2007 could have all their penalty rates, overtime rates, rest breaks and so on removed with no compensation or inadequate compensation. They will remain stuck with what the government acknowledges is an unfair agreement and there is nothing that they can do about it. There is nothing, to my mind, fair about this.

With respect to income exclusion, apart from the arbitrary nature of such a provision, of particular concern is that because the annual threshold amount is applied pro rata to part-time employees, there will be part-time workers who earn significantly less than the prescribed amount but whose agreements will not be subject to the test. Once again, we are seeing workplace laws from this government that disadvantage the already vulnerable. The Greens are also particularly concerned about the potential for many employees who were employed under the state industrial relations system prior to Work Choices and who could now be excluded from the fairness test. The exclusion of these employees comes from the definition of ‘usually covered by an award’, where an ‘award’ is defined specifically as a federal award. As became clear in the Senate inquiry, there are many employees whose work was covered by a state award but where there is no federal award. While the amendments to schedule 8 in the bill are intended to deal with this issue, as the bill is currently drafted, into the future these employees would not have the fairness test applied to subsequent agreements. There will be additional problems in the future for employees previously in the state system where there is no relevant federal award to apply in the test, and the bill does not allow the Workplace Authority Director to consider a state award as a designated award. We understand that the government intends the award review process to circumvent this situation arising; however, we have no faith that this review process will occur in such a time or manner to ensure that employees will not fall through these gaps and become worse off.

We note the government’s intention to move an amendment to ensure that all employees working in traditionally award-covered areas, including under state awards, are subject to the fairness test. We would welcome such amendment but will await the detail to consider if it adequately addresses the problem. With all these holes and gaps for employees to fall through, this is not a safety net but a sieve. The Greens will be moving amendments to the bill so that the fairness test must be applied to each and every workplace agreement lodged.

A second area of concern for the Greens is the operation of the fairness test, particularly in the way the test is limited to only considering a restricted list of protected award conditions. Under this test, a range of award conditions can be traded away without compensation. These conditions include: redundancy pay, long service leave, rostering provisions and other working hour provisions, casual loadings that are more than 20 per cent, any right to request flexible working conditions, and paid maternity leave. These are important conditions which affect an employee’s work and family life and they should be factors in the test if it is to be truly fair. The Greens believe an effective fairness test must consider all award conditions. We are also concerned about the extent of matters the Workplace Authority Director can take into account in deciding whether an agreement test passes the fairness test. In particular, we note the objections of the ACTU to the director being able to take into account the employee’s personal circumstances. We believe that such a provision is discriminatory and should not be considered in the legislation. We are also concerned about the breadth of the exceptional circumstances exemptions open to employers in respect of the industry, location or economic circumstances of the employer. We do not believe such exemptions should be allowed, but if an employer is able to have their economic circumstances taken into account, in all fairness a resulting agreement should be limited to no more than one year or at least be reviewable after one year. That way, if the employer’s business circumstances have changed, employees are not subject to an inferior agreement for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

The application of the test to collective agreements is inequitable. These provisions allow for some employees under the agreement to not be provided with fair compensation for the loss of conditions while others are. The Greens do not believe such inequity should be allowed and we are moving a simple amendment requiring the fairness test to be applied to each and every employee under the agreement to ensure that they will receive fair compensation for loss or modification of award conditions. A number of submissions have raised concerns about defining and assessing fair compensation, and in particular taking into account non-monetary compensation. The Greens share these concerns and believe the bill should provide a clearer definition of fair compensation. The Greens are concerned about the lack of transparency in decisions made by the Workplace Authority Director in applying the fairness test. We believe it would enhance the fairness of the test if provision was made for a person affected by a decision of the director to have the right to request and receive written reasons for the decision. Furthermore, there should be a process for review of the director’s decision. These decisions potentially affect people’s livelihoods, and as such there should be a robust mechanism to ensure that these administrative decisions are taken in accordance with the legislative requirements. The Greens will move amendments to this effect.

The list of deficiencies in this bill is extensive. We will also be moving amendments to strengthen the provisions relating to what happens when an agreement fails the test so that there is no possibility of an employee being returned to an inferior agreement. If you fail the test, what happens after that? We will also be moving amendments to strengthen the provisions for dismissal protection.

The interaction between Work Choices and the Welfare to Work laws are of particular concern to the Greens. We already have the unconscionable situation where people receiving welfare benefits can have these benefits cut off for eight weeks if they refuse a job which requires them to sign an AWA, but now we have the potential for people to be breached and have their benefits cut off for eight weeks if they refuse to sign an unfair AWA. We believe that amendments need to be made to the Social Security Act to ensure that this situation is not a possibility. While the law is unclear on this, it could happen.

I want to make a couple of comments on the amendments proposed by the government to its bill relating to prohibited content and union registration. The government is moving from the regulations into the act the listing of bargaining fees and some other union related matters as prohibited content. These provisions demonstrate a cynical manipulation of legislative process—bargaining fees are already banned under Work Choices, like they were under the previous act.

The Greens are supportive of the amendments relating to the ability of state unions to become federally registered if some members, rather than a majority of members, are in the federal system. The requirement for a majority of a union’s members to be in the federal system before the union could be federally registered meant that a number of public sector unions with majority membership in the state system faced not being able to represent those minority of members in the federal system. With the corporatisation of sections of the Public Service, this was a direct threat to freedom of association. We are glad the federal government is prepared to fix this problem.

The Greens will be moving a series of amendments to make this a true safety net and to make sure that the safety net provides for everybody. We want to really put fairness into this fairness test and we want to do what is really fair for all workers in all circumstances, not a select few under limited circumstances.

This bill not only is not a safety net; it is a sieve. But it also has what I think may be unintended loopholes that need to be fixed—for example, the Welfare to Work provisions, where people could be breached for not signing an unfair AWA. I do not believe that that is the government’s intent—I believe it is a genuine loophole—but I think it needs to be fixed. As I have not seen any amendments to fix this, despite the fact that it was raised in the committee inquiry, the Greens will be moving an amendment, which I hope the government will support, to ensure that people are not breached if they refuse to sign an unfair AWA, because I do not believe that that is the government’s intent. If it is the government’s intent that people could be breached for signing an unfair AWA, I am shocked. But I hope they do recognise that, to be fair, they need to act to fix that loophole and they need to act to fix other loopholes.

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

It is with great pride that I stand up today to talk about the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. Contrary to what has been put forward by both Senator Siewert and Senator Murray, this new fairness test will enhance the safety net for over 7.5 million Australians making workplace agreements. It will allow employers and employees to modify or to exclude protected award conditions but only where employees are fairly compensated. This particular bill guarantees employees fair compensation in lieu of conditions such as penalty rates, overtime and shift loadings. There is also additional protection for vulnerable employees, including young people and workers from a non-English-speaking background.

I would like to take issue with Senator Murray when he mentioned that, in the original Work Choices legislation passed in December 2005, and in this bill as well, coalition senators made no move to amend or ameliorate some of the conditions that we thought needed fixing. You may remember, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, that coalition senators—and, I will say, along with Labor senators—held extensive consultations with the department to see that outworkers were not disproportionately dealt with under the original legislation. I have also gone to particular trouble to check out that, in this legislation, their conditions of work will be looked at so they do not suffer any detriment. Indeed, government senators have made several recommendations as a result of the committee hearings which deal with some of the issues brought up by Senator Murray. But I might leave those remarks till later on.

This bill will reassure Australian workers that, when they enter into a workplace agreement, it will be a fair one that has been approved by an independent statutory authority. It builds on the important employment and workplace relations reforms that were undertaken by this government in 1996 and again in 2006. This is a bill that obviously has looked at the original Work Choices legislation one year on and then decided to make appropriate changes in the areas where it thought changes needed to be made. It is a matter of evolution, not revolution.

The system that is now working under the original Work Choices legislation and this bill has helped reduce unemployment to a rate of 4.4 per cent. It has created more than two million jobs over the past 11 years, no matter what Senator Murray says, and it has ensured that a record high 10.4 million Australians are in work. What we want to do is make sure that this country’s future economic prosperity is bolstered by a flexible and modern workplace relations system. We establish in this bill two independent statutory offices which will play pivotal roles in maintaining the safety net. The fairness test is to be applied by the Workplace Authority to ensure that workplace agreements provide that fair compensation. And the Workplace Ombudsman will ensure that employers comply with their legal obligations with regard to the fairness test. The Workplace Ombudsman will also strengthen the policing role that has been undertaken previously by the Office of Workplace Services.

No matter which way you look at it, and no matter which yardstick you use, in every area of economic activity this government has provided exceptional growth, exceptional productivity and exceptional benefits to workers. Look at jobs growth. Since March 1996, two million jobs have been created and 85 per cent of all jobs created have been full time, giving the lie to the story that has been established by the Labor Party and other parties that many of those jobs have been part time.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They hate that we’re a friend to the workers, Senator.

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

They do indeed, Senator Brandis. There are now 7.4 million people in full-time employment and 2.9 million in part-time work. As I mentioned before, the unemployment rate in Australia was 4.4 per cent in April 2007, its lowest level in over 30 years, and it has been below five per cent for 12 consecutive months. The unemployment rate for males is four per cent and the unemployment rate for females is 4.9 per cent. If you contrast that with the unemployment rate of well over 10 per cent that operated when I came into this place, the difference is startling.

I note with interest a report in today’s paper that our very successful Work for the Dole program, which helps unemployed people back into the workforce, is not having enough people applying to take up places because presumably they are all out working or in study or training, which is just what we want them to be doing. Long-term unemployment, people who have been out of work for more than six months, is at its lowest level in 20 years. It has more than halved under the Howard government.

Wages was something that both Senator Murray and Senator Siewert mentioned. Recent ABS national accounts figures highlight that real wages have increased by 1.5 per cent since the introduction of Work Choices and, indeed, there has been a 19.8 per cent increase in real wages under the coalition compared with a 1.8 per cent decrease when Labor were in government.

Regarding those workers on a collective agreement compared to those on an AWA, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has again found that non-managerial employees earn $949.60 a week on Australian workplace agreements. This is, on average, nine per cent more each week than employees on a collective agreement, who earn $871.20, and 94 per cent more than employees covered by an award.

Let us look at job security, which is another yardstick. In the year up to February 1991, the retrenchment rate was 6.5 per cent, falling to 4.6 per cent in the year to up February 1996 under the Labor government. Since that time, the retrenchment rate has continued to decline to stand at 2.2 per cent in the year up to February 2006. People value their jobs, they want to keep them and they work hard at it.

Australian workplace agreements are the main point of this bill. Over 380,000 Australian workplace agreements have been lodged since March 2006. The participation rate among the working population now stands at 84.9 per cent—a near record high. That compares with the rate of 63.5 per cent in March 1996 when this government came to power. The participation rate of Australian youth—that is, 15-year-olds to 24-year-olds—ranks second highest amongst OECD countries. There are many more statistics that I could give the Senate, such as on industrial disputations. The number of strikes is now so low that the ABS will not release data on many state industries because there are so few that to do so would identify the individual employers. Worker entitlements and small business convey similarly encouraging figures.

I will now take a look at what has been proposed by Labor in its similar blueprint of Forward with Fairness. Under Labor, there will be no limit on what the union bosses can demand in agreements. Therefore, unions will be able to force employers into having the following requirements in workplace agreements: deductions from an employee’s pay or wages for trade union membership subscriptions; paid leave to attend trade union meetings or union meetings; bargaining fees to trade unions; providing unions with information about employees bound by agreement; that any future agreement must be a union collective agreement; mandated union involvement in dispute resolution; employers will be compelled to invite the union bosses to be a party to every agreement they make with their employees; workers will be bound by union agreements even when they have chosen not to be a member of unions claiming coverage of a site; and Fair Work Australia will tell the parties what they must put in their agreement before it will be approved. Indeed, there are many others.

We have already heard from Senator Wong that Labor will abolish AWAs and that Labor will impose collective bargaining on every workplace by requiring employers to bargain collectively when ordered to do so by Fair Work Australia. In fact, where just one employee in a workplace wants a union agreement, the union will have the right to be a party to any agreement made. Labor is trying to claim that non-union agreements will be available. Why then will it only allow union greenfields agreements and not non-union employer greenfields agreements as well? That is what the current system allows.

Labor has form when it comes to this. Under Labor’s system from 1994 to 1996, for employers to ensure that they could get a non-union collective agreement, they had to notify the unions that they were negotiating with their employees, they had to give unions the right to participate in the negotiations and, incredibly, they had to allow them to be a party to the agreement, if that is what the union wanted. I was glad that those bad old days were behind us. In other words, under Labor you could only have a non-union collective agreement if the unions said so. I must say that that is very unlikely, but that is how it would be under a Rudd Labor government.

By contrast, it is the coalition that has facilitated choice, and that is what workers want these days. The coalition has provided the freedom of association provisions in the Workplace Relations Act and it has offered a choice of AWAs, union collective agreements, non-union collective agreements, union greenfields agreements and employer greenfields agreements. It is what the workers who are working in the business want, not what the union wants.

We have also enabled unions to be parties to collective agreements and bargaining agents for employees entering into AWAs, and we have maintained the right of union officials to lawfully enter workplaces and to take lawful industrial action. There is a continuing role for unions in the workplace relations system. Unions are only asked to act lawfully, just as employers and employees are obliged to act lawfully. That is the sort of system that the coalition has set in place, and I for one am very pleased that that is what we have done.

As I said before, I think that the government senators in the committee hearing we held recently entered constructively into discussions. We recommended that the government consider the various technical and consequential amendments proposed during the inquiry, because there were some unintentional drafting errors. We also recommended that the Workplace Authority take note of those concerns raised during the inquiry about the duration of agreements that might be made when it is claimed that there are exceptional circumstances. This takes up the point that Senator Siewert made. She said that the Greens will be proposing an amendment to set duration of an exceptional circumstances agreement at a certain time. We do not expect exceptional circumstances to go on forever and, of course, there must be a good hard look at those. We also recommended that the Workplace Authority take note of the concerns raised during the inquiry about the application of the fairness test and ensure that these inform the performance of its duties. This bill is about fairness. I believe that the legislation underpins that and I recommend the bill to the Senate.

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

The Senate conducted an inquiry into this amendment of the Work Choices bill. Senator Troeth, who has just made her contribution, is chair of that committee and I am deputy chair. There was a dissenting report from the opposition senators, and all other political parties represented in this Senate also put in dissenting reports. I guess if one reads both reports you will see a very stark contrast in the conclusions that both groups—government and opposition senators—have made in their contribution. While I accept that both parties can grab figures from here and there to back up and argue their case, it is ultimately the Australian people who will make the final decision on this.

The differences represented in this chamber are also the differences that are represented out in the community. It is one of the issues that most starkly defines the difference between the coalition government and the Labor Party. We believe our criticisms of this bill are well founded. We believe our criticisms of the original Work Choices bill are well founded. I accept that the government argues the same from their point of view. Again, this is a debate we will have and it will ultimately be a debate decided by the Australian people.

This Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007 simply seeks to amend the flawed Work Choices legislation. The Work Choices legislation is flawed for this fundamental reason: it assumes that there is equality in the bargaining position between an employee and an employer. Simply, there is not. Employers decide the terms and conditions of employment, the way in which the work will be done, when the work will be done, and what sort of work will be done. They have all these matters under control. Employees do not have the ability to negotiate around those issues unless the employer seeks to allow them to do so.

This is the argument the coalition will not win, because every Australian worker—whether they are the chief executive of one of our largest companies or one of the lowest paid workers in this community—understands and knows that there is no equality in the bargaining position between employers and employees. Some will argue that that is right—that that is the way it should be. We in the Labor Party do not agree. We believe that it ought not be that. Employees ought to have a large set of conditions that give them employment protection, that are protected for them and not able to be simply stripped away because an employer decides to do so. The reality in life—the reality which this government seeks to ignore or pretend simply does not exist—is that AWAs are offered on a take it or leave it approach. Most AWAs are template or pattern AWAs and there is no negotiation. AWAs are simply offered on a take it or leave it basis.

The flexibility often promoted as a benefit of the government’s industrial relations policy is one-sided and mostly delivers flexibility to the benefit of employers. The rhetoric associated with flexibility as the most desirable characteristic of workplace agreements is wilfully misleading. There is rarely any real negotiation with employees, who are often faced with the prospect of signing an AWA as a condition of employment, promotion, transfer or wage increase. Most AWAs are standardised documents that do not take into account an individual’s circumstances. Work Choices allows simply for wages and conditions to be gouged with no regard at all to the productivity or the flexibility that this government seeks to champion. It is simply a race to the bottom. This government often confuses the difference between productivity and profitability. Simply allowing employers to gouge the wages and conditions of employees does nothing to enhance productivity; it is all about profitability. Of course, time and time again we have seen in a similar industry one employer who reduces the cost of the wages component in their production putting pressure on every other employer in that industry who competes with that employer, and we see the downward spiral and the race to the bottom.

The government will argue that that is not happening and it will bring out all sorts of statistics—and if I get a chance I will address some of those later in my contribution—to try to say that that is not happening. But the government will fail to convince the Australian people because it is the Australian people who are actually experiencing this. They know how it works. They are the ones who are suffering under this legislation. They are the ones out there, day in and day out, with those sorts of pressures being brought to bear on their employment. This government has simply sided against working people, and Work Choices is the result of that.

The government claims that this amending legislation is required to address the perception of unfairness—simply the perception. It may assist the government’s political agenda in addressing the perception, but it will do very little to address actual fairness. This is what the Treasurer had to say in an interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program on 6 May. Laurie Oakes asked the Treasurer:

Staying with IR though, the hundreds of thousands of people that have already signed AWAs would not get any protection from the new measures announced last week by the Prime Minister. So you have a two tier system. Where is the fairness in that?

The Treasurer’s answer was:

Well I think Laurie, the fact of the matter is to go back through all of those contracts, to go back through all of those conditions again would lead to an enormous dislocation, and there is no real evidence, no real evidence at all that there have been any egregious cases. So what the Government has announced is protection measures for the future in relation to fairness. I think they are sensible measures, I think they will work and I think you will see the benefit in relation to the workforce.

So the Treasurer does not believe there has been any real evidence of any egregious cases. But of course that flies in the face of the facts—the government’s very own facts. It is quite a ridiculous assertion by the Treasurer. We know from the Senate estimates of May 2006 that there was a sample of AWAs at that time—and I admit it was a small sample and we would like to have much bigger samples. But of those sampled AWAs, 100 per cent excluded at least one of these so-called protected award conditions, 64 per cent removed leave loadings, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 52 per cent removed shiftwork loadings, 41 per cent did not contain gazetted public holidays, 31 per cent modified overtime loadings, 29 per cent modified rest breaks, 27 per cent modified public holiday payments, 22 per cent did not provide for any wage increase over the life of the agreement and 16 per cent excluded all of the so-called protected award conditions and simply replaced them with what the government calls the fair pay minimum standard.

That was the first set of data. Then there was the data leaked to the Sydney Morning Heralddata the government denied it was collecting. The Office of the Employment Advocate was collecting it, even though they denied to Senate estimates that they were doing so. That data was from a much larger sample, taken much later and from a much broader group. It said that just under 45 per cent—note, the figure is now around 45 per cent—excluded all of the protected award conditions, 30 per cent excluded rest breaks, 70 per cent excluded incentive based payments and loadings, 59 per cent excluded annual leave loadings, 23 per cent excluded declared public holidays, 53 per cent excluded public holiday pay, 67 per cent excluded days to be substituted for public holidays, 57 per cent excluded allowances, 52 per cent excluded overtime loadings, 76 per cent excluded shiftwork loadings and 68 per cent excluded other forms of penalty rates. So that evidence is out there. And the Office of the Employment Advocate now admit they were collecting sample data and they have not denied that that leaked data is the data they were collecting. The Treasurer says there is no evidence. But what further evidence do we need?

The government’s own amendments in this legislation are simply an acknowledgement that AWAs have eroded standards of living, left many workers worse off and attacked traditional values and quality of life. They have created an industrial relations system where the basis of social justice and a fair go, or protection for society’s most vulnerable workers, have been undermined. On 4 May Minister Hockey said:

“We are introducing a stronger safety net for working Australians. It was never the intention that it should be the norm for penalty rates to be traded off without proper compensation and that’s why the Government is going to introduce new laws that, simply put, employees must receive fair compensation if they agree to trade away conditions such as penalty rates, shift and overtime loadings, monetary allowances like travel allowance or tool allowances, annual leave loadings, public holidays, rest breaks and incentive and other types of bonuses.”

This statement is simply untrue. It was always the intention of Work Choices to allow for the removal of every so-called protected award condition. Take the government’s own example of ‘Billy’ from the original Work Choices advertising campaign and contained in print in their WorkChoices booklet. This is a case study to demonstrate to employers what you can actually do with Work Choices. The booklet says:

Billy is an unemployed job seeker who is offered a full-time job as a shop assistant by Costa’s who owns a clothing retail store in Canberra. The clothing store is covered by a federal award. The job offered to Billy is contingent on him accepting an AWA—

take it or leave it—

The AWA Billy is offered provides him with the relevant minimum award classification wage and explicitly removes other award conditions.

As Billy is making an agreement under WorkChoices the AWA being offered to him must at least meet the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard.

The AWA Billy is offered explicitly removes award conditions for public holidays, rest breaks, bonuses, annual leave loadings, allowances, penalty rates and shift/overtime loadings.

Billy has a bargaining agent assisting him in considering the AWA. He understands the details of what is in the AWA and the protections that the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard will give him including annual leave, personal/carer’s leave and parental leave and maximum ordinary hours of work. Because Billy wants to get a foothold in the job market, he agrees to the AWA and accepts the job offer.

There we have it. We have got the Treasurer saying that there have been no problems with the application of Work Choices so far, no egregious effects at all. That is simply wrong. Then we have Minister Hockey saying that it was never the intention of the bill to allow these things to be traded away without fair compensation. But there it is in the Work Choices documentation first up

The tragic thing is that, as it appears in this legislation, the Billy example can still get through the new so-called fairness test. Let us listen to what the Prime Minister had to say on the same day as Minister Hockey. He said:

But where the penalty rates etcetera are taken out or are modified in any way there’ll be a fairness test and the fairness test will inquire whether adequate compensation has been provided in return. Now in the great bulk of cases that compensation will take the form, probably of an increase in the hourly rate to take account of the non payment of penalty rates but the compensation can take a non-monetary form and in examining whether adequate compensation’s been paid, the authority will have a look at all aspects of the agreement. In some cases extremely flexible working arrangements can be given in return for the non payment of penalty rates, in other cases additional entitlements can be given.

It can be the case that a particular beneficial arrangement is made by a parent in relation to leave to do things concerning their children in return for an understanding that if that parent is required to work at irregular hours then penalty rates are not to be paid. Now these are all assessments that will be made. The economic circumstances of the firm can be taken into account, the employment opportunities and experience of the individual employee can be taken into account but it would be my belief and the belief of the government that in the great bulk of cases the judgement would be made in relation to monetary matters but I would not want to excluded non monetary ones.

So there we have it: Mr Hockey saying that it was never the intention of the government to strip away the so-called protected award conditions without proper compensation and arguing that the fairness test will enshrine that, and on the same day we have the Prime Minister saying that it does not necessarily have to be monetary compensation and all these personal issues such as unemployment status or employment experience will be taken into consideration.

That brings us to the fundamental flaws of these amendments. As Senator Wong has indicated, even if one individual does benefit from the so-called new fairness test—and I suspect it would mainly be because there may be a fix in the perception where employers do not seek to exercise their rights under Work Choices to simply take away all these conditions—we would support the legislation. But let us make no mistake, the holes in this fairness test will be driven through by employers who want to still seek to remove the so-called protected award conditions and either pay no monetary compensation or very little. The case of Billy from the original Work Choices legislation is still there and it can still pass the test.

Who is going to apply this test? Again, this is one of the major concerns that we have and I can only suspect that the government has drafted it this way so that it will be a weak test. We have an arrangement where the old Office of the Employment Advocate will shortly be called, with the passing of this legislation, the Workplace Director. The Workplace Director will have the full realm of subjectively deciding what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. People may say that it is good to have someone independently doing that. Let me say two things to that. All that will be done in secret. No-one will know what weight the Workplace Director will put on any of those matters. If Billy were unemployed and seeking to get, as the WorkChoices booklet said, a ‘foothold in employment’ what value would the Workplace Director put on that? He can put any value he likes on that. He can put any value he likes on the removal of penalty rates. It does not have to be publicised; it does not have to be justified; no-one will necessarily know about this or how it was arrived at.

Where does that leave the employees? In terms of the old no disadvantage test that used to apply prior to Work Choices all these things were always negotiated in an open forum where decisions were publicised and precedents were made. Other employees and employers could get an understanding of what penalty rates were worth, what parental leave was worth, what carer leave might be worth, what the ability to have flexibility would be worth. Agreements would be negotiated based on those transparent, non-secret processes, and people could be satisfied that what they were forced to trade away in AWAs that were given to them as a take-it-or-leave-it process were in fact compensated for fully. There is going to be no right to appeal if you are unhappy. Agreements will simply go up to the Workplace Director and will come back as passing the unfair disadvantage test.

I would like the time to speak much more about many of the other flaws in this legislation on Work Choices. Clearly, here we are with a government that seek to make a quick political fix. They know they are in trouble because the Australian workers know that Work Choices is unfair as they come under more and more pressure to lose their wages and conditions and they are already judging the effectiveness of Work Choices. All of a sudden we see the government rushing to put the word ‘fair’ back into Work Choices with amendments as they seek to fix a perception. In the government’s own words, this is about ‘fixing a perception’, not fixing fairness. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. The motivation for this bill is very clear. The Prime Minister is worried about losing his job, and his government is still losing its campaign to win over the Australian people to an industrial system that is inherently unfair. The purpose of the bill—which has yet another of the government’s notoriously Orwellian titles—is to try to trick the people of Australia into believing their government cares about working Australians and their families. However, the lack of any substantial commitment to fairness in this bill clearly shows that the government does not care.

There is, as previous speakers on the Labor side have said, enough in this bill for Labor to grudgingly support it, but it would be vastly improved by the recommendations made by opposition senators in their comments that were included in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education, which inquired into this bill. It would also be improved by the Senate agreeing to the amendments moved by Senator Wong in her speech on the second reading, but it is of course highly unlikely that those amendments will get up.

Labor will support the bill because anything that ameliorates the horror of the original Work Choices legislation should be supported. We support the bill but we are sorry to see that the Australian taxpayer has to fork out for yet another massive propaganda splurge by a government that is running away from its Work Choices label and that is covering its tracks with another media advertising spend—a spend that started off at $4.1 million for just one week of advertisements about a bill that had not even been drafted. And who can forget the $55 million-plus spent on advertising the original Work Choice legislation. We should not forget either that Australian taxpayers are still forking out $4,581 per month to store 3.5 million Work Choices booklets that are in storage because no-one wanted them in the first place. Now they are completely useless and will undoubtedly be pulped. What an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money. We have come to expect nothing less from this arrogant Prime Minister who likes to spend taxpayers’ money on coaches for the Queen and lavish dining tables. He also thinks it okay to use taxpayers’ money and property to subsidise Liberal Party fundraisers.

The government does not like to use the Work Choices brand anymore; we have seen that in this place today. But Labor continues to happily utter the name that dare not be spoken by senators on the opposite side. We continue to mention it in the context that Labor will tear up the Work Choice legislation and replace it with an industrial system that is fair and transparent and is in the best interests of our economy and our nation’s future prosperity. As we know, the people of Australia were not duped by the government’s misleading rhetoric about the virtues of Work Choices originally, and they will not be duped by this new bill either. Their distrust of the government and their suspicions about the motivations for this bill can only be exacerbated by the appalling disregard for parliamentary process that preceded the debate we are having here tonight.

After months of bad polls, on 4 May 2007 the Prime Minister announced that a new so-called fairness test was to be included in the Workplace Relations Act. Agreements struck after 7 May 2007 would be subject to the new arrangements. We are used to this government’s liking for legislation by press release. It is a hallmark of a government led by a worn-out Prime Minister who is desperate to hang on to his job. Never mind that employers and employees who were in the process of entering into agreements from 7 May were wondering, when they heard the announcement, just what laws applied to the agreements they were entering into. Never mind that the legislation had not even been drafted when the announcement was made. A rattled Prime Minister and his bumbling—or I think he called himself ‘bungling’—minister rushed into making an announcement with the sole intention of gaining some political mileage. Then, in an extraordinary manoeuvre, on 10 May the government in the Senate decided on a date for an inquiry into a bill that had not even been drafted. The draft bill eventually appeared some weeks later and a one-day hearing into the bill of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education was held in Canberra on 8 June 2007. Interested persons and organisations had only seven days to prepare their submissions to that inquiry. The committee had to report to the Senate less than a week later. It is just another example of the government’s disregard for appropriate parliamentary process.

The committee’s report from that inquiry reinforced the disparity between the government’s rhetoric about its industrial laws and the facts. It is a disparity that has characterised the debate ever since the government seized its Senate majority and rammed through industrial laws that the majority of Australians did not ask for, did not want and did not vote for. The government senators’ report from the inquiry into this bill is littered with words like ‘flexibility’, ‘streamlining’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘simpler’. More flexible, more streamlined, more efficient and simpler for whom, we ask. When you look at the practical implementation of the new test, you would have to say that the answer is: for no-one. What is simpler, more flexible, more efficient and more streamlined about creating the massive bureaucracy that will be spawned by this bill and that will cost the Australian public an additional $370 million? What is simpler and more flexible about having a plethora of regulatory bodies involved in Australia’s workplaces? These include: the Workplace Authority, which used to be known as the Office of the Employment Advocate; the Workplace Ombudsman, who used to be known as the director of Office of Workplace Services; the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner; the Australian Fair Pay Commission; and the industrial commission. Heaven help employers trying to navigate that minefield. What is simpler, more flexible and more efficient about an employer now having to hand out an additional piece of paper, a piece of government propaganda—the so-called fairness test fact sheet—to employees or risk a fine of $110 if they fail to do so within the prescribed time limit? What kind of burden is that on the small businesses that this government claims to protect? What is simpler and more flexible about an employer so confused that they need to get pre-lodgement advice from a government authority about a workplace agreement so that, when the agreement is lodged, the Workplace Authority can confirm that it meets the fairness test? All of this is because of this government’s longstanding determination to destroy the award system that provided a level playing field for employers and a decent safety net for employees. All of this is because the government knows that its workplace laws are on the nose with the Australian electorate, an electorate that understands the sense and stability of a strong award system underpinning workplace agreement making.

The electorate has not swallowed the government’s $90-plus million worth of propaganda so far and will not be fooled into thinking this bill is anything other than the application of a few changes to make a bad system look better. The Australian people will not be fooled because they have seen enough now to know that the heart of the government’s industrial relations agenda is to drive down wages and conditions through the use of individual contracts that can and will be offered on a take-it or don’t-take-it job basis. The government has this agenda because it is tired, ideologically bereft and has an impoverished view of a world that cannot contemplate any other way forward. A good Australian government would be focused on giving the nation an industrial system that encourages and emphasises genuine productivity improvements, that ensures workplace commitment to skills and training so that we can overcome the skill shortages holding us back and that really helps working families with genuine work-life balance initiatives. But, instead of modern and much-needed laws, this government promotes minimalist wage cutting and divisive individual agreements and lumbers Australian employers with the massive bureaucratic red tape that goes with the negotiation and approval of those agreements. It remains to be seen whether the Australian people will get any value for money out of the $370 million extra the government is going to pump into the multitude of organisations that monitor the 900 pages of the Workplace Relations Act.

The alleged purpose of this bill is to strengthen the safety net underpinning all workplace agreements. Of course, prior to the Work Choices legislation, we had something called the no disadvantage test to provide that benchmark, but the government got rid of that because they did want workers to be disadvantaged. The government took away the no disadvantage test because they wanted to create a world full of workers like Billy from the Work Choices propaganda booklet—vulnerable workers who could be forced to work on an agreement which had no penalty rates, no shift loadings, no leave loading, no compensation for working on public holidays and all the other things that are important to working people who engage in honest toil and have an expectation, rightly so, to be compensated accordingly.

While Labor knows that most employers do the right thing, some do not, and most will do whatever they can within the limits of the law to cut costs, including wages and on-costs, because they have to compete with each other, as Senator Marshall explained. That is what happened when Work Choices AWAs were first made available to employers. We know from the infamous statistics at the 2006 May estimates that, of the first 250 or so Work Choices AWAs, 16 per cent expressly excluded all protected award conditions, 63 per cent excluded penalty rates and 22 per cent did not include any pay rises. After that horror story, the office formerly known as the Office of the Employment Advocate stopped collecting statistics officially. But then we found out in April this year, courtesy of the media, that a sample of more than 5,000 AWAs analysed by the office formerly known as the OEA showed that 45 per cent had removed all protected award conditions and 76 per cent had removed shift loadings.

Realising it had gone a step too far and there are a few too many Billies out there who might damage the Prime Minister’s chance of returning for another round of fundraisers at Kirribilli, the government proposed the amendments contained in this bill—amendments to the Work Choices legislation—which Labor supports because they are better than nothing, but they are still not good enough. They are not good enough because the new fairness test does not apply to all employees. It does not guarantee monetary compensation for traded benefits, it does not apply to all award conditions, there is a lot of subjectivity in the application of the test, and there is no adequate appeal process if employers or employees are aggrieved by a decision of the Workplace Authority.

I would like to spend a few minutes elaborating on a few of those deficiencies. The new test does not apply to workers on existing AWAs, so the 300,000 or so workers on AWAs registered prior to 7 May can still be stuck on agreements that have no wage increases, no penalty rates, no shift and overtime loadings, no rest breaks, no leave loadings, no allowances and no whatever else they may have lost. It could be almost another five years before those workers are offered another agreement that is subject to a fairness test. There is no requirement for the fairness test to include wage increases, and the test will allow employers to require employees to sign agreements that trade off conditions such as penalty rates and overtime for non-monetary compensation. Just what constitutes sufficient or agreed non-monetary compensation remains to be seen, and whether or not the compensatory value is retained over the life of the agreement, which can be for five years, is not subject to review. As well, numerous escape clauses are available for employers who can avoid paying or giving appropriate compensation for loss of award conditions if they can demonstrate alleged difficult economic circumstances or competitive disadvantage because of their location. Just how these special cases are going to be fairly judged also remains to be seen.

In their dissenting comments in the Senate committee report, to which I earlier referred, Labor senators made a number of recommendations that would address some deficiencies in the bill. Included in those recommendations was the abolition of the $75,000 annual income threshold on the basis that all employees should be covered by the fairness test. An important point was made during the committee hearing that, because the $75,000 threshold is applied pro rata to part-time employees, there will be many workers who earn less than the prescribed amount whose agreements will not be subject to the test. As most part-time workers are women, it will be women who are most disadvantaged by this arbitrary and unfair limit. At the very least, Labor says that the income threshold should be indexed; otherwise, over time, more and more employees will fall outside the limits of application of the fairness test. Labor also recommends that all conditions and entitlements of the relevant award or instrument are included in the application of the test. This is the only way that the real value of traded benefits can be properly calculated.

Another recommendation that goes to the matter of transparency and accountability of the process of application of the test is the Labor senators’ proposal to include an appeal process against decisions of the Workplace Authority. We also suggested that the authority be required to provide reasons to the parties to an agreement justifying its decision. When the authority makes a decision, the parties to an agreement should have the opportunity to verify or refute information the authority has relied on to make that decision. This is particularly important because we know that the army of 570-odd new contractors or public servants required to implement the fairness test will undoubtedly—initially at least—have little understanding of the complexities of what constitutes a fair compensation. Anybody who has worked in the industrial system for any period of time would appreciate that that is always a difficult thing to calculate.

Another recommendation of Labor senators is that any agreements formulated under the exceptional circumstances provision be subject to a limited lifespan and include a requirement for a review during the life of the agreement as to whether those exceptional circumstances still apply, and if they do not still apply then the forgone conditions should be reinstated to the workers affected. Otherwise we will see agreements struck under the exceptional circumstances test—a test that in itself is going to be very subjective—that could be in place for up to five years. Labor is also concerned that, where an agreement fails the fairness test, there is potential for the workers party to the failed agreement to revert to an even less generous agreement struck prior to this legislation. Workers caught in the situation should be entitled to the protected conditions that would have applied but for the operation of the earlier, less generous agreement.

While this bill will be passed by the Senate, Labor questions the bona fides of the government, which has only put the legislation into the parliament in an attempt to improve its standing in the polls and in the eyes of the Australian people whom it continues to treat with contempt. As we know, Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has made it known that he thought the original Work Choices legislation did not go far enough. The employer bodies that appeared at the Senate inquiry or that provided written submissions were lukewarm in their support for this bill. While they obligingly supported the government it was evident that the view of big business was that they thought the situation that pertained prior to this bill was just fine but they understood the government’s need to address perceptions—and for ‘perceptions’ read ‘adverse public opinion’.

In the unlikely event that the government wins the next election, Labor are concerned on behalf of working Australians that the government will revert to form and dismantle the few, inadequate protections that this bill provides, whereas Labor in government will rectify the current imbalance in Australian workplaces; we will create legislation that makes the always difficult balancing act of work and family life easier; and we will ensure that workers are protected by a real, supportive and strong safety net. Labor will create a system that is overseen by one independent industrial umpire, creating consistency in decision making—a feature that is completely absent in the government’s bill.

In this bill, the government has given a token nod to what most fair-minded Australians saw two years ago, and that is that Work Choices was neither choice nor fair. No amount of expensive taxpayer funded advertising, no amount of repetition of words like ‘flexibility’ and ‘efficiency’ and no amount of prime ministerial trickiness can cover the fact that this government is determined to persist with an industrial system that is inherently unfair.

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

I stand tonight to support the government’s legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007, and in doing so say that this legislation is on the back of the government’s reform legislation of March last year, which is on the back of the 1996 reforms of the Howard-Costello team. It is in the context of a Labor opposition that have over the last 12 months and longer made as a centrepiece for the party the fact that industrial relations is sacrosanct for them. They say that it is the big ticket item for them; it is the raison d’etre for their whole being. Yet Labor’s industrial relations policy before us today is nothing short of a dog’s breakfast. I say that because they have policies fair and square which say that they wish to abolish AWAs, but they have not decided exactly what will replace them. They are not sure within their own minds as to what should replace AWAs, or maybe they just wish to abolish AWAs altogether and lead us back into history to a centralised wage fixing or collective bargaining system and to remove that choice for the 1.9 million small businesses around Australia today. They also have a policy to bring back the unfair dismissal laws. In my view, that is a very retrograde step and would be very damaging to Australia’s small business in particular. This is a policy which Australian small businesses particularly wanted removed, and we tried 44 times in this parliament to remove it, but Labor with some of the opposition parties prevented that effort until recently. As I said, this time last year those reforms did take place.

The reason for Labor’s inability to come up with a policy which is sensible, meaningful and that will create jobs, a stronger economy and higher wages is in my view because they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the union movement. They are owned and operated by union bosses. I do not say that willy-nilly or off the top of my head. I say that because the facts speak for themselves. Union membership is 15 per cent of the private sector workforce, down from 16.8 per cent; yet nearly 80 per cent of the senators on the other side have a background in the union movement. I accept that some of them in fact—I can see Senator Stephens nodding over there—do not have union backgrounds but nearly 80 per cent of them do. Almost 70 per cent, or 27 out of the 40 on the front bench, are former union officials. Of course, 55 per cent, or 48 of the 88 ALP caucus, are former union officials. They are owned and operated by the union movement. In the wings, as it were, with the next election heading our way very shortly, we have people like Greg Combet being parachuted into the parliament. The fact is that the ALP have no employment balance; they are made up predominantly of ex-union officials and activists who are anti business and have never had to balance the books or to worry about creating jobs—and that is very important for the small business community.

The unions view construction not as a tool for progress but as a tool for stopping progress. They forget the dictum Tony Blair, the Labour Prime Minister in the UK, put forward some years ago: the best form of welfare that you can provide a person is a job. They seem to be political players hell-bent on power for union bosses rather than defending the rights of the working men and women of Australia. I think the union bosses have lost sight of their original goals. Their new goals are about personal advancement and personal perks rather than representing their membership. This mindset flows with them into politics. It has poisoned what some people would say was a once great Labor Party. We have seen evidence of this in recent days and weeks, with the union campaign strategy document having been leaked and discovered. It makes it very clear that they want union representatives and union members to be acting like they are in a scene from Little Red Riding Hood. She comes up and knocks on the door, and they are the wolf clothed like a little granny, kind and generous, dressed up, giving to and looking after the little granddaughter inside—but of course the exact opposite is occurring. They are motivated in all the wrong ways. They want to be represented at barbecues and at church meetings. They want to have DVD nights. This is what the strategy document discloses, and they have been found out.

At the Canberra hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education of which I was a member—and we received 28 submissions—held on 8 June 2007, I asked Sharan Burrow of the ACTU whether she stood by her comments and the lobbying that she had been undertaking, on behalf of the ACTU, to the ILO with respect to Australia’s position as being among some of the worst in the world. Australia—as a result of that lobbying by Ms Burrow and indeed, no doubt, others—has replaced Colombia on the list, where of course unionists have been assassinated for their activities. This is the type of activity that they have been involved with. It is a great shame, because it probably was once a great party. But that seems to have changed.

Tasmania is a small business state, with over 50 per cent of the private sector workforce in small business. It is critical for Tasmania. The Labor Party have preselected a man called Kevin Harkins in the federal seat of Franklin. He is a member of the ETU. In fact he is still employed by the ETU. It was Dean Mighell from the ETU in Victoria who, only a couple of weeks ago, was sacked by Kevin Rudd. In Tasmania Mr Harkins has not been sacked and remains a member of the ETU. In fact he received considerable sums of money from the Labor Party for his campaign. The ETU have now admitted that that is the case. I have an ABC Tim Cox morning show transcript with me where Nicole Wells, on behalf of the Tasmanian ETU, says:

My limited information that I have about that, Tim, is that it was around $20,000. My understanding is that it will be refunded within the next week or so.

Tim Cox says:

So that was what was already spent.

Nicole Wells says yes.

And how much had to be returned that was unspent?

She says:

There is $20,000 to be returned to the ETU.

Tim Cox says:

So a total of $40,000.

Wells says:

That is correct.

So we get an admission from the ETU in Tasmania—on ABC radio and in no other publications, as far as I am aware—that $40,000 must be returned to the ETU from the Labor Party. Has it happened? Has it been identified by Kevin Harkins? We do not know. Has he come clean and disclosed this information to the Tasmanian public? We do not know that either. All this is in the context of an IR debate and a discussion about the future for Australian working men and women. Kevin Harkins, in my view, should promptly return all those donations from his union, and he should either cease working as an employee of the ETU or cease being a candidate for the Australian Labor Party in the electorate of Franklin. You cannot have it both ways.

In terms of the reforms, something was made clear, in my view, at the Senate committee hearing by a number of the submissions. The ACCI submitted. The list of those that submitted is at the end of the committee’s report. It included the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union, the ACTU, the AiG and the department. We received a very good submission from AMMA, the Australian Mines and Metals Association. They make it very clear that they are very supportive of the reforms of the government and they highlight the benefit in terms of higher income for those in the mining sector. They refer to a recent study by the Melbourne Institute which found that average wage increases to workers on individual contracts were 6.8 per cent, exceeding those under collective agreements, 3.9 percent, and awards, at 3.3 per cent. This seemed to be disputed somewhat by the Labor Party. But the Australian Bureau of Statistics make it clear that on average those on an AWA have a nine per cent higher average wage than those on a collective agreement and a 94 per cent higher wage than those employees covered by an award. That is a huge amount of money extra. And why not? Those on individual agreements, those with an AWA, are earning a whole lot more. The government’s reforms have delivered higher wages, and the runs are on the board. It has certainly delivered more jobs. We have already heard about this during the debate, with nearly 360,000 additional jobs created, the bulk of those—over 90 per cent—full-time jobs. We have the biggest number ever in Australian history, 10.4 million, in the Australian workforce.

I was speaking about the merit of AWAs before the break and I was supporting the fact that the stronger safety net provides exactly that. It provides a fairness test to strengthen the safety net for agreement making in the national workplace relations system. Regarding AWAs, I was contrasting Labor’s position, which is to abolish AWAs, with the government’s position. The fact is that Australia now has had over 1.2 million AWAs either approved or lodged since March 1997. It is estimated by the Workplace Authority that at 31 March 2007 there were 747,000 AWAs in existence and that 364,634 AWAs were lodged between 27 March last year and 27 May this year. It is estimated that close to 400,000 AWAs will be lodged over the 2006-07 financial year based on an average five per cent monthly growth rate. At this growth rate, it is projected that nearly one million AWAs will have been lodged in the three years to the end of 2001.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Workplace Authority say that people on AWAs in Australia make up 8.3 per cent of the workforce. This was confirmed by the department to our committee a few weeks ago in Canberra. I say that because it contrasts most markedly with the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, who said on the 7.30 Report on 24 May:

Some 3 per cent of employment right across Australia currently has AWAs …

Why would he say such a thing? I was at a conference in Melbourne speaking to an IR forum seminar and shadow parliamentary secretary Brendan O’Connor was speaking at the same conference. He said that the number of Australians working on AWAs was four per cent of the workforce. And yet we have got the facts on the table: it is 8.3 per cent. In fact, with respect to my home state of Tasmania, we have had 40,675 AWAs since the industrial relations system began in 1997 and 9,016 since March last year. The national percentage, as I said, is 8.3 per cent, but in Tasmania it is 13 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition has been saying publicly, on the 7.30 Report, that it is three per cent. I think I know why he is saying that: he is trying to downplay the importance and the relevance and the significance of AWAs in Australia today.

But what do other people say about AWAs? We know the ABS says that people on AWAs are earning nine per cent more than those on a collective agreement. We know they say they are earning 9.4 per cent more than those on an award. But what do other people say about AWAs and the merits of them? The message from the business community is very positive indeed. And what do they say about the Labor policy? Let us read what Tony Caccamo, the Western Australian general manager of Australian Mines and Metals Association, AMMA, says. On 31 January this year he said:

Unless the ALP policy provides the same features as AWAs, we will continue to lobby hard against the abolition of AWAs …

That cannot be much clearer. An article in the Australian Financial Review on 23 March this year quoted Charlie Lenegan, managing director of Rio Tinto—a very important, big mining company for Australia:

Global … giant Rio Tinto has made a rare foray into domestic politics in an election year, labelling federal Labor’s pledge to abolish Australian workplace agreements as a “pathway to the past rather than a pathway to the future”.

On 9 April this year in the West Australian he went on to say:

“It is a nonsense to deny their importance and short-sighted to pursue policies which will eliminate this employment choice …”

So they are on the record. AMMA’s general manager of workplace policy, Chris Platt, said:

Any removal of AWAs hands power to union bosses.

I think that says it in one; that is exactly what it does. He goes on to say:

This, we believe, is the real reason behind the ACTU’s opposition to AWAs.

The ACTU campaign for the removal of AWAs is simply a means of handing power back to union bosses and facilitating an increase in union membership.

Of course, it would appear that the lapdog for the ACTU—that is, the Labor Party—are doing exactly that: they are following the bidding of the ACTU. Steve Knott, the head of AMMA, on 15 March this year said:

AWAs are a huge success in the mining industry. Why the ALP seeks to destroy AWAs is primarily about union control and political product differentiation.

AMMA made a very good submission to our Senate committee of inquiry and made it very clear:

As at 30 March 2007 37.2% of the resource sector were covered by AWAs.

They said in their submission:

A review of resource sector agreements lodged in the 12 months to 31 May 2007 reveals that 73.5% of resource sector employees were covered by an AWA, 21.8% are covered by a union collective agreement and 4.5% are covered by a non-union collective agreement.

They go on to say:

On 23 May 2007, BHP Billiton Chief Executive Chip Goodyear said that AWAs had had improved productivity by about 25 per cent by fostering a direct relationship with their employees.

Then, today, on the front page of the Australian is a story headed ‘Building giant warns against IR changes’. Steve Lewis writes:

Construction giant John Holland has warned that a multibillion-dollar productivity dividend will be threatened if Labor wins office and winds back the Coalition’s industrial relations reforms.

In the latest business challenge to Kevin Rudd’s industrial policies, the company argues the continuation of Australian Workplace Agreements is ‘essential’ for the $90 billion sector to achieve further productivity gains of up to 20 per cent.

With some building firms reportedly factoring in ‘risk-of-Rudd’ premiums into future contracts, John Holland also wants Labor to drop plans to scrap the building industry watchdog—

and it goes on. So you can see the concern in the community and in the business sector in particular as a result of the proposed abolition of AWAs under Labor’s policy. It is a deep concern for those on this side and for the community in general, and it is a fear I also have. (Time expired)

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007, as has been said by my colleagues preceding me in this debate, represents very small, incremental improvements to the gross unfairness of the post-Work Choices Workplace Relations Act. It should also be said that it is building on a very low base, because the Work Choices objective of driving down wages and conditions and of putting fear into the hearts of workers has substantially bitten in the workplace—otherwise, why would the government have gone to the extent they have to make changes to Work Choices at this point in time? They have made those changes because we are three or four months out from an election, they know that Work Choices in the workplace is biting hard against them, and they are trying to minimise the damage of the legislation to ordinary working Australians.

It has not just been Work Choices. I have been here since 1997 and I do not think a year has gone by in which we have not had a debate over some aspect of our industrial relations system. The government were frustrated for a considerable period by not being able to get passage through the parliament of the worst excesses of their industrial relations agenda because they did not have a majority in this place. But they have had a majority in this place since 2005 and they have used it brutally. They used it to introduce legislation in the industrial relations environment which went far beyond anything they took to the electorate to seek a mandate for in 2005. This is clearly an ideological agenda; everyone knows it is an ideological agenda. But who is it hurting? It is not hurting us on this side and it is not hurting employers, but it is hurting ordinary workers, particularly those on low incomes.

You can tell it is an ideological agenda just by listening to the contribution of Senator Barnett. He talked about union bosses; that is currently a line they are trying to get across. He talked about the dirty tricks campaign; that is another line they are trying to get across against the ACTU. He talked about Colombia, despite the fact that Ms Burrow, the president of the ACTU, told the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education committee that what had been reported was a falsehood—a lie, to put it in common terminology. Despite Ms Burrow telling the committee that, Senator Barnett persists in perpetrating the falsehood attributed to Ms Burrow. He talked about the Labor Party being the lapdogs of the union bosses. It was nothing but invective and rhetoric on behalf of the government. There was not a lot of substance in the contribution.

I know Senator Barnett is trying to impress those above him, including the Prime Minister, because he sees himself being left behind. He is being passed by all of his colleagues from Tasmania. Even Senator Parry, who has been here only a couple of years, has surpassed Senator Barnett and been appointed the Government whip. But you do not get yourself promoted by being prepared to ape the language of the leadership—by getting out there and promoting the rhetoric that you think will curry favour with them. You get it by doing hard work, Senator Barnett, and dealing with the substance of the bills before us.

You talked about union bosses and I heard you name a lot of people. You named Greg Combet and a number of others. I did not hear you name the leader of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Hendy, who is a union boss. Didn’t he once work in Mr Reith’s office? Wasn’t he one of the people who assisted Mr Reith on the waterfront—one of those who got up to the dirty tricks campaign on the waterfront to knock off the maritime workers union? Wasn’t he one of the leading protagonists in Mr Reith’s office? I did not hear you mention him. I did not hear you mention Mark Paterson, who is an ex-union boss and who now sits in the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources as the secretary of that department. I did not hear you mention him in your discussion about union bosses. Is it only those union bosses who work for trade unions who are bad; not the ones who work for employer organisations, who, in your view of the world, are all good?

At the hearing of the Senate committee we heard evidence from ACCI. It was remarkable, because Mr Barklamb, acting on behalf of ACCI, said that he did not believe this legislation was necessary—that in fact it was being driven by a publicity campaign, a scare campaign, by the ACTU; that none of the issues that were being raised were actually happening out in the workplace; and that it was all of a state of mind that was being created by this campaign by the ACTU.

I pick up the government majority senators’ report on the hearings and their conclusions. The first paragraph of the conclusions reads:

The committee majority considers a flexibility in workplace agreements is crucial for improving productivity, employment and suitability of workplace conditions.

I understand what productivity is and I understand what you need to do to improve productivity, but individual or collective workplace agreements by themselves will not increase productivity. I understand what employment is, and you can argue that both ways. I am struggling to understand what ‘suitability of workplace conditions’ means in the context of this paragraph. Then it goes on to say:

This also allows employees to negotiate conditions that are more appropriate to their circumstances.

In the hearing I asked Steven Smith from the Australian Industry Group if he could tell me how long it took to negotiate an AWA in a factory of boilermakers or a factory of metal workers. He could not tell me; he had no idea. I asked him if it was common for agreements in a factory of that character to be the same in that they contain the same conditions. He essentially admitted it was. He said that where there are negotiations, where there are more negotiations, is within senior management ranks—managerial staff and technical staff. Gee, that was enlightenment! I have only been in the game 42 years and I always understood that was the case: that management and technical staff were in a position to be able to negotiate their own agreements, but for the vast majority of people on the workshop floor it was a collective agreement. The conditions are similar because you could not work a factory on any other basis, otherwise it would be absolute mayhem. They still persist with this argument that employers like Ford at Broadmeadows, General Motors Holden and Bluescope Steel are all sitting down individually with their employees across the table saying, ‘Joe, what would you like this year in your agreement? Are there any family-friendly clauses we can put in? You have got three kids: would you like to knock off at 2 o’clock in the afternoon and start at 9.30 in the morning and come back, say, at 7 o’clock, when you put the kids to bed, and do an extra couple of hours to make up your wages?’ What utter garbage. No-one who has any cursory understanding of how industry operates would contemplate for one minute that that sort of system would work. It is absolute nonsense. The majority report went on to say:

Some apprehension has been expressed in the community that agreements could possibly be negotiated that remove entitlements without adequate compensation.

They came close to actually saying, ‘Yes, there are circumstances where workers out there can get ripped off’. Well, gee, that is enlightening! But it goes on to say that this has been driven largely by a campaign more remarkable for rhetorical excess rather than for evidence based comments. ACCI’s contribution to the inquiry was summed up in the first paragraph of the majority senators’ report.

They went on to talk about the dirty tricks campaign of the ACTU. Again, I have been involved with the union for 42 years and have been an official for 27 of those, and let me tell you, there would not have been 12 months go by that we did not put out material to our members advising them what was happening in the economy, on wages, on working conditions, what changes there were and giving them ideas on how they can promote the agenda out in the workplace. The Australian Metal Workers Union have published a number of books on the economy: Australia ripped off was one and Australia betrayed was another. A number of these were written when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister. Mr Howard was Treasurer for about seven years. He was the Treasurer who left us with double digit inflation in 1983, double digit employment and double digit interest rates. Check it out, Senator Barnett; make a note of it. I can guarantee you they were all in the double digits in 1983 when Bob Hawke walked into the Lodge.

When you look at the inflation and unemployment rates of 1983 and compare them to the size of the workforce that existed at that time, it was substantially more significant. You can put on that term whatever you like, but it is an important part of these Work Choices amendments so I presume you know what ‘significant’ means. It was more significant than what the inflation and unemployment rates were in 1996 when you came into office—much more significant. But I did not hear you talk about any of that. The reality is that in this country we have an industrial relations system that is deliberately constructed to be unfair, otherwise what was the basis of adopting it in 2005 anyway? It was deliberately put in place to ensure that the pendulum swung fairly and squarely in favour of employers and against employees, and it was constructed in such a way that third parties, that is, unions, would be cut out of the employment relationship to maximise the ability for employers to exercise the flexibility they wanted in the workplace. That is exactly what has happened. When you look at Tristar and other prominent cases which have been reported publicly, what has been happening in those factories is as a direct result of the imbalance this government put into the employment relationship as a result of Work Choices.

Now, ho, ho, ho—it’s starting to bite! Workers are coming back to bite you, because they are the ones who have suffered the consequences of it. The government knows that. The government does polling, the same as Newspoll does polling, the same as the ALP does polling—and everyone knows that industrial relations has been a front-and-centre political issue since its introduction in 2005, the only difference being that, the longer it has been in place, the more workers are exposed to it, the more they understand the nature of the legislation and the more they are determined to get rid of it. I think Mr Howard is going to find that out come October/November, whenever the election is held. Sure, it is true to acknowledge that what you are doing with respect to this legislation is incrementally better than what is currently there—but, as I said, albeit that it is being built on a very low base.

I want to quickly dispel this myth on wages that you keep raising. You keep raising ABS statistics. I quickly want to mention that the ABS, in some of its studies on relative wage levels, has found that the average weekly total cash earnings for full-time, non-managerial adult employees who had their pay set by award conditions only was $767.30. Mind you, it should be acknowledged that, for the vast majority of people on awards, wages are built upon by common-law contracts—that is, over-award payments and workplace agreements—so one should not assume that they constitute a majority of the workforce. But what the ABS went on to say is that this compares with average weekly total cash earnings of $1,103 for full-time, non-managerial adult employees who had their pay set by a collective agreement and $1,061 for full-time, non-managerial adult employees who had their pay set by individual arrangement. That is not just AWAs, that is a total of common law and AWAs, so again you have to disaggregate the figures in order to get what the AWA element was. But the ABS, in the statistics we have been using, clearly is saying that persons on collective agreements are better off than those on individual contracts. That is from the ABS report 6306.0 entitled ‘Employee earnings and hours’. You can find that at page 8, Ms James, if you are determined to go and have a look for it. That shows unambiguously that workers on collective agreements take home more money at the end of the week than do those on individual contracts.

There should be nothing remarkable about that, in terms of this debate, because we know from the data that the Employment Advocate, as he was then, when Work Choices first came into being, collected and actually analysed the first month and a half of data. He stopped analysing it after he saw the results, not because it was too difficult but because the results were too painful for those on the other side to have to deal with. We know that 45 per cent of all AWAs stripped away all protected award conditions. We know that this provision that you have put in place will not mean one iota of change for those 45 per cent of AWAs that have already stripped away the protected award conditions, because you are not going to go back and apply the fairness test retrospectively. You are not going to go back and say, ‘That wasn’t a very fair arrangement; we think you ought to make those past agreements that have been registered meet the current test.’ You know you are not going to do that, so those agreements will run for two, three, four, five years with those conditions unprotected and those workers having already had those conditions cut out of their overall terms and conditions of employment.

I have grave doubts that 500 people, half of whom have been recruited from labour hire firms, who are now doing the assessment of the new agreements—who, as I understand it, have had two weeks training at the maximum—are going to be able to apply the rigour of scrutiny necessary in those new agreements to ensure that the Employment Advocate, workplace director, or whatever his new title is, will be able to stand up, put his hand on his chest and swear at estimates that every one of those new agreements in fact has met the fairness test. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We in the Labor Party were told by the government that the old industrial relations system was too complex; various ministers waved thick award documents at us and railed about the difficulty of following the system. Never mind that many workplaces had moved to enterprise bargaining, and the system had become generally much more streamlined, the facts never got in the way of citing a good exception. The resulting Work Choices legislation is barely in place before we stand here looking at an amendment. A rushed change has been implemented, because of widespread rejection of the new industrial relations regime, and adds uncertainty and complexity to the legislation. Look at some of the superficial changes: the Office of the Employment Advocate becomes the Workplace Authority; the Office of Workplace Services becomes the Workplace Ombudsman; the term ‘Work Choices’ gets ditched as a term, and then maybe reinstated. This is before most employees or employers grasped what was going on with the original legislation. Despite the government’s massive spending on taxpayer funded advertising, most people did not understand even the broad parameters of the new system. Despite the government’s heavy-handed attempts to push workers into AWAs, including mandating them for some recipients of federal government funding, most employers and employees have avoided AWAs.

Some of the other changes that will cause confusion and possible legal challenges are that fair compensation appears to be based on a subjective assessment by the Workplace Authority, exceptional circumstances is not defined and the calculation of non-monetary compensation for significant value to an employee is not defined. The Workplace Authority is given wide-ranging, unspecified authority in these amendments. There is no requirement for the director to provide reasons for their decisions, assessments or interpretations. These changes could well result in an intrusive, authoritarian body being able to delve into a company’s business and into the lives of employees.

The government harangued us about the time and cost of the award and enterprise bargaining system. Imagine how much time it might take to deal with, and the cost of, the new circumstances. Employees will have to cope with not only dealing with negotiation with their employer but also dealing with the unwieldy bureaucracy created by this new legislation. They will have to put together their case while dealing with ill-defined concepts and will perhaps have to prove circumstances of their personal lives. Business may also well find it difficult to put together their case—small business in particular. Imagine having to put together a case for exceptional circumstances. Imagine having to put together a case for fair compensation for your business. Imagine having to prove whether or not something is contrary to the public interest. I suggest that that would take up a good deal of any business’s time.

In addition, the government will need another $370 million over four years for the implementation of these changes. So now we find the government not only moving to a more complex formula for workplace relations but having to spend considerable extra funds to pay for it. Why are the government doing this after they spent years arguing that Work Choices was such a good system? It is because the polls were starting to look really bad for the government. This is not about job conditions for ordinary Australian workers; this is about job conditions for government members. They want to be able to stay in power. They want to be able to continue to have their additional salary and perks of office. So when the ACTU mounts a campaign to protect the rights of workers, and the right of unions to represent workers, the government responds by attacking the ACTU and unions. The government feels entitled to spend many millions of dollars on taxpayer funded advertising but reacts with high alarm when anyone dares to mount a response. It tries to bully business groups into spending even more money to counteract the ACTU. It mounts an attack on the ACTU campaign, using a number of the usual members and ministers who are prepared to hector, distort and exaggerate.

Minister Abetz attempted to play his little part in the beat-up about the ACTU campaign manual by smearing me, my husband and my husband’s small business, Magenta Linas Software. He looked up the register of Senate interests and found that I had quite properly noted my interest in Magenta Superannuation Trust as a director, so he came into this chamber and made all sorts of snide insinuations and claimed that I must be linked with Magenta Linas Software, who he stated were involved in what he called ‘dirty tricks’. The truth of the matter is that my husband, like many small business people, has a private superannuation fund because there is no-one else to pay him superannuation. Unlike the minister, he does not have a generous superannuation scheme, so he started a superannuation fund and he called it Magenta Superannuation. You would think, if someone were familiar with business practices, that it would be clear that something called Magenta Superannuation was a super fund. But, no, in his haste to spread dirt, the minister tripped over himself and made a stupid mistake. Magenta Linas Software is indeed connected with my husband, who is one-half of a partnership in that business, but I am not connected with it, or I would have declared it in my Senate interests. I have nothing to do with its operations. Incidentally, neither of the partners in that business has ever been employed by the ALP, as the minister also claimed.

This is the kind of small-minded, petty individual who is part of the team that drew up this Work Choices legislation and amendment—and it shows. These government ministers and members believe that business is entitled to be advised by lawyers, human resources professionals or business groups like business chambers or chambers of commerce but that employees should do it on their own, that unions should be shut out of representing their members and that employees should be discouraged from joining unions. Then they are surprised when unions campaign on behalf of their members to throw out this flawed Work Choices legislation and the government that created it.

The government’s other response is to bleat about the number of Labor members in parliament or candidates for parliament who, at one stage in their lives, worked for a union. I have never worked for a union but I know I would rather be a union employee working for improved benefits and conditions for working people than a government member collaborating to try to push down the wages and conditions of ordinary workers and their families. Union employees are out in workplaces talking to everyday workers. They know the conditions in the workplace and they know the stresses that workers and their families cope with from day to day.

The latest example that came to my office was that of a printing shop employee who wanted to start and finish work 15 minutes earlier to assist in his family life. The employer said no. The employer said no to a quarter of an hour variation in work hours. So the employee said that, in that case, he would finish up his job. The next time any government member thinks about standing up and talking about how under Work Choices an employer and employee will sit down together to draw up an AWA that incorporates family-friendly conditions, they should give that example a little thought. This employer would not budge for a 15-minute variation. And it gets worse. Having accepted this employee’s resignation, the employer then went back to the conditions of employment and enforced a period of notice. He went back to the letter of the law of the contract to exact the last drop of this employee’s blood. So this man, who dared to ask for a variation of hours by 15 minutes, was not paid for his last week at work. This man has gone to everyone he can think of, including the Office of the Employment Advocate, and has got no substantial assistance—and this amendment will not help. This is indeed an unusual example, one would hope, but the government uses extreme examples to demonise unions.

There are indeed employers who want the best for their employees as well as their companies. I have worked for some very good employers in my varied career. I encountered fair and just employers in my career as a scientist. When I went to work in business I encountered encouragement and fulfilment in a range of areas from the Crafts Council of Australia to the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories Pty Ltd. But I have also known of some very unjust practices: employers who exploited migrants, young adults just out of school and low-income workers desperate for a job.

One case that comes to mind is a market gardener who sought to stop his process workers going for a toilet break at any time during their long working hours. Another did not pay his workers the compulsory superannuation guarantee. A mobile food van owner made his employees count and reconcile money and drive back the van outside of paid working hours—and I can assure you the pay was pitiful. In each case one of my first questions was whether the person was a member of a union. The answer was almost always no, because if they had been a member of a union, they would have had a place to go—someone to defend them earlier.

The government knows that neither the Work Choices legislation nor this amendment bill will help the majority of such employees. Now that the Liberal government has a Senate majority and can implement its agenda, that agenda is even more apparent. It is right that executives get appropriately remunerated at high salaries; it is right that companies make record profits; but the government is content for there to be an underclass of employees.

I will also tell the government that the reason Work Choices is doing badly in the polls is that it is bad legislation for a bad reason. Most workers recognise this, whether or not they are members of a union or will ever be members of a union. The government has been driven by extreme ideology to make legislative changes that are unfair to ordinary workers. It has been able to do this because it has a majority in both houses of parliament. I think you can be sure that the people of Australia will ensure at the next election that such a situation will not occur again. The arrogance of a government that has been in too long has led it to make a major error.

Last minute amendments will not change the inherent unfairness of the Work Choices legislation. The Labor Party is committed to getting rid of these laws and is committed to providing a real safety net for workers. Fairness has long underpinned the industrial relations platform in this country—fairness for employees, fairness between employees, and consideration of families and family circumstances. This Liberal government first came into power promising to govern for all. It was rewarded by successive re-elections. It has now assumed such arrogance, such comfort in its power, that it is prepared to destroy a history of all workers in society being given a share in Australia’s wealth—a fair go for everyone.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am keen to join my Democrat colleague, Senator Murray, in speaking on this legislation. This is a crucial area of Australian law—a pivotal one to the economy, of course, but also a pivotal one to Australian families, to our society and to the way our society operates. It is an area that has had a lot of public and media attention, but a lot of that attention has, in my view, really been about sloganeering and throwing ideological statements backwards and forwards rather than looking at the reality of what is happening and the practical and accurate detail of what is in the existing law, what is being put forward here and, indeed, what was in the system was prior to Work Choices being brought into place.

One of the amazing ironies I find in reading and listening to some of the commentary about the current Work Choices and workplace relations debate is that you would think that prior to Work Choices coming down the system we had was some sort of neolithic, union-friendly, Neanderthal, knuckle-dragging piece of 19th-century clunkery that the government has only just updated. Any suggestion of moving even partly back towards just to where we were in 2004 is usually screamed at as being a massive kowtowing to the union movement and a complete collapse back to the Dark Ages. As far as I know, no-one from the coalition during the 2004 election campaign, including the Prime Minister, went around complaining about how bad the workplace relations laws were. I am fairly sure, if I remember correctly, they actually used to talk about how positive they were—how they were a key contributor to Australia’s economic prosperity; how they were a good balance and a fair mechanism. They were all statements that, broadly speaking, I would agree with and indeed did agree with at that time.

Whilst always having variations and modifications one would like, it is a simple fact that the balance with regard to the workplace relations regime prior to the last election was reasonably acceptable. It could always do with refinement, it could always do with improvement, but it was broadly in the area of where you want it to be to balance all the competing interests that are there. Yet, somehow or other, now that we have Work Choices in place, any suggestion of going back to anything like that is portrayed as a massive retrograde step back to an ancient, distant past where all productivity would collapse. It shows how hysterical and detached from reality a lot of the public debate is about this issue. To me it shows the importance of having a measured, reasoned, balanced and common-sense approach to the whole workplace area.

Even just listening to the debate to date in this chamber we have had a lot of the accusations from the opposition about greedy businesses and dastardly employers and from the government side we have had all the standard arguments and lines about thuggish union bosses and exploitative unions and all those sorts of rhetoric that we are well and truly used to. As always, there are elements of truth in the picture that both sides attempt to paint, but, as is also always the case, a lot of that obscures the reality.

I guess you have to get used to rhetoric in this place. Back when the Democrats agreed to a modified version of an initial, tentative attempt to establish the Building and Construction Commission, I recall sitting in this place at about one or two in the morning towards the end of a session around June—probably a similar time period three years ago—and former senator Peter Cook, now sadly deceased, was holding forth at great length about how the Democrats were fascists for supporting evil legislation that was allowing this commission to be put in place. I might say that that commission was an extremely constrained, minor version of what the government put in place once they had the total power in the Senate, when they went the whole box and dice and took away all of the protections and removed the sunset clause and all of those things the Democrats had put in place. Now we hear that the ALP is happy to leave this new version of the Building and Construction Commission—which I presume, if the earlier version was evil and fascist, is five times more evil and more fascist—in place for a few years. Those are the sorts of absurdities you get in this sort of debate.

Throughout the period of the Howard government, the Democrats took the consistent position that we did not believe that the evidence was there that removing protections against unfair dismissal would create the wave of jobs that were promised. We did not believe the evidence had been presented so we took that consistent position in the face of a lot of attack, quite possibly losing some votes as a consequence. But now, suddenly, the ALP thinks it is acceptable to accept half of those things. The secret ballot provisions, which I thought then and think now are completely absurd, were resisted by this Senate repeatedly at the risk of putting a double-dissolution trigger in place. At the risk of threatening our own seats we consistently held firm on that and, suddenly, that is all okay for the ALP. Yet we all know what would have been said if the Democrats had agreed to any of those things at any time through that 10-year period. ‘Evil’ and ‘fascist’ probably would not have been the half of it; we would have copped twice more than that. That is the reality of this debate. To me, it reinforces that you have to block out all of the extremist rhetoric you get from both sides and simply look at the facts.

The same thing applies with the government benches and the ridiculous excessive attacks we have had on the union movement as a whole. Of course, in the same way as there are unscrupulous employers, there is the occasional union official who overreaches their power, but this absurd portrayal of unionists, trade union leaders and unions in general as some sort of jackbooted force crunching their way through Australia’s economy is beyond a caricature. It makes rational debate basically impossible. All we would need to do is to go back to the debate that happened in this place less than two years ago when the Work Choices legislation was first put in place. It was guillotined through this place after a disgracefully short Senate committee inquiry, followed by a tidal wave of amendments that nobody even had the chance to read before they were guillotined through this place. Anyone who simply sought to point out the flaws in the legislation got all the vitriolic rhetoric in the world from government ministers and the like, who would say how we were getting in the way of jobs, how we were beholden to the union movement and all the sorts of attacks that you could imagine. Yet here we are now—less than two years later—trying to address some of the very flaws that the Democrats and plenty of others were pointing out at that time.

So why is it that what we are doing now is an essential piece of fairness that will strengthen the safety net, yet amendments that sought to do very similar things less than two years ago were dismissed as ridiculous, excessive, bureaucratic, getting in the way of business, employment and growth and all of those sorts of things? It is about time we had some accuracy and honesty from all sides in this debate. It is about time that we got some of the absurd hysteria in the media commentary out of the way and just looked at the facts—at the reality of how the system works now, how it worked before and what will be put in place subsequently.

I suppose in one sense all you have to do is to look at the title of the legislation: ‘A Stronger Safety Net’. I suppose it is somewhat closer to reality than some of the other titles for legislation we have had in the past—for example, the notorious ‘More Jobs Better Pay’ bill, which may or may not have led to more jobs but it certainly would not have led to better pay for many people, in the same way that Work Choices has not. In the past, we have had some from other areas of law—for example, the migration procedural fairness bill, which actually removed procedural fairness. By those standards, just calling it ‘A Stronger Safety Net’ is half true, but it neglects to note that it is putting in place a safety net to make up for the damage done when this government tore away completely the safety net that existed prior to Work Choices.

That strong safety net, the no disadvantage test, linked to the existing award system and, whilst not completely perfect—it still needed some refinement and tinkering in terms of how it was administered and enforced—clearly operated in a way that ensured that people’s basic wages and entitlements were not driven downwards and that there was a safety net there that would protect lower income earners in particular from being exploited in situations where they had less bargaining power. So to completely destroy the safety net—to almost gleefully light the bonfire and circle around it, chanting and praising its destruction—and then to put a pale shadow of that safety net back in place and try to praise it as strengthening the safety net is fairly misleading, I might say. But, again, it shows how much all this debate is about spin and rhetoric rather than about the reality. It also highlights the importance of the role of the Senate. The reason why we had Work Choices in the first place, and the reason why we are here now with this piece of legislation, was not that Mr Howard won government at the last election—he has won government a number of times since 1996. Whilst we saw versions of workplace relations laws that were in the ballpark of Work Choices, none of them was ever passed because of the role the Democrats in particular played in finding a more balanced approach.

But the fact is we had Work Choices, and we have this legislation now, not because Mr Howard won government at the last election but because Mr Howard won control of the Senate as well at the last election. That is the reality and that is why, frankly, it continues to bemuse and amaze as well as frustrate me that there is so little attention paid in public commentary to the Senate contest and to the potential consequences of various Senate outcomes. Obviously it is in my interest, as someone seeking re-election, to want to get a focus on the Senate contests around the country, but it is also a simple fact that the very reality of Work Choices is a consequence of decisions made when people cast their Senate votes last time, not how they voted in the House of Representatives.

The same issues, clearly, will rise again at the upcoming elections. Work Choices and workplace relations will be a major election issue—it already is and will continue to be—and it has to be said that the choice people make when they vote for the Senate in the various states and territories will play a significant role in the future development of workplace relations laws whoever wins government. We already have what I think is quite a justifiable concern. However strong or otherwise this modified pale shadowy version of a safety net that is being put back in place is, there is a very understandable suspicion that, once the election is out of the way, if Mr Howard and the coalition win again this safety net will be out of the way and gone as well and we will be back to something akin to the original Work Choices, perhaps even with some of the extra things that needed to be done according to Senator Minchin. We all recall the speech that he gave when he suggested that further change, further movement, further reduction of whatever safety net or protections there were in place, still needed to occur. People have an understandable and justifiable right to be quite concerned about what might be done were the coalition to win government and retain control of the Senate. That, again, is the key issue: what sort of Senate will there be to oversee workplace relations laws and, of course, many other laws as well?

The legislation before us does put in place, or return, some protections to people and, inasmuch as it does that, it is of course welcome. Nonetheless, it does highlight just how much of an extra pile of red tape we have had put in place, and we are now having more put in place by the government. One of the great myths about Work Choices was that it removed red tape and regulation and freed up and opened up the whole system. It certainly removed a lot of things. It removed protections—there is no doubt about that—and it removed a range of other things in terms of some of the aspects of what employers needed to do. But it also put in place a huge regulatory regime to try to contain and constrain trade unions in particular and to constrain and prevent employers and employees from being able to reach agreement about particular things. Imagine putting forward legislation saying, ‘We are removing constraints about how people reach agreements in the workplace,’ and then putting in place in law all these things that you are not allowed to put into your agreement. What we have are a lot of ideologically driven barriers and walls and pieces of red tape—social engineering—from government contained within Work Choices. We actually get the double whammy of removal of protection but on top of that a pile of extra red tape. It is quite extraordinary and it is probably partly why we have had a reduction in productivity since Work Choices came into being.

These extra changes put in place in this legislation will reintroduce some protections but they will also most probably further increase regulatory controls and oversights. They will also increase the amount of resources that need to be put in place by government to monitor and oversee the system—that is assuming there is a genuine desire to ensure that such protections as are put back in place by this legislation are properly enforced. That is a very big question mark, and one that does need to be followed through. By putting in place this threadbare safety net you are putting in place much stronger requirements to oversee and monitor in order to enforce the protections, insufficient as they are, particularly because they have been uncoupled from the broader global no disadvantage test and the global floor of basic award protections. In many ways, then, you have a much more complicated job if you are trying to ensure and to monitor that these protections are properly enforced. In some ways we are actually getting the worst of both worlds with the approach that the government is taking, with a back-track here that should reintroduce some protections but at the cost of even further complications and even further red tape.

The point I want to emphasise in closing is the importance of getting a balanced, common-sense approach when it comes to workplace relations. If there is one area that the Democrats have been completely consistent in over more than two decades now, with both coalition and Labor governments, it is that we have sought to find the middle path between attempts to completely enforce the union line and attempts to completely enforce the line of at least some in the business sector. Whilst there is always room for nitpicking along the way, I believe that the Democrats have done an extremely successful job in finding that middle path, in balancing the competing interests and competing rights, the need for protections and for recognition of family life, of the work and family balance and the social contract, and of enhancing productivity. I think we can justly claim to have played a significant role in contributing to the economic prosperity that Australia has enjoyed for some period of time, opening up enough flexibility in the workplace to enable greater productivity and, indeed, enabling people to have greater flexibility in their own working environment, which I think is an important part of the modern workplace, but not at the expense of destroying the social contract or of removing protections.

This has to be an ongoing debate based on those principles. It is about time we had the debate based on principles and practical outcomes rather than grotesquely overstated rhetorical flourishes. I hope we can do that between now and the federal election, although I suspect it is probably a naive hope. To some extent a lot will depend upon how the media engages with it. If they focus on some facts and substance rather than just going for the most colourful, extreme beat-ups we might get somewhere. Let us see.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak tonight in favour of the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. This legislation is an important step in the evolution of the workplace laws and reforms that the Howard government has introduced since 1996. I note Senator Bartlett’s comments about the need for balance and common-sense in workplace laws. I believe that this government has sought to achieve that balance and common-sense. I note that the Australian Democrats, especially 10 years ago, played a key role in helping to achieve some of the first waves of reforms. I hope that in future years they will recognise the benefits of the waves of reforms that have been introduced in the time since.

This is an important step in our evolution because it is about providing flexibility that cuts both ways. This legislation will ensure that we provide fair compensation in lieu of protected award conditions. It was never the intention of the workplace relations laws that were passed in 2005 that such fair compensation not be provided. This legislation will guarantee it; it will ensure it and lock it away. It will ensure that the lies and smears about the industrial relations laws that we have heard flung around this place and in the media will not continue.

We have now 10.4 million Australians in work, 7.4 million of them in full-time work. This is a record number of people enjoying jobs and work and a record number of families enjoying greater opportunity in Australia today. It has happened following the successive waves of workplace relations laws and reforms that the Howard government has introduced. In my first speech in this place last week I said that I would return to debate the question of which party would be the best friend of Australian workers. Tonight I argue that the coalition parties and the Howard government are indeed the best friends of Australian workers. We are the best friends of Australian workers because in the life of this government we have generated more jobs, there are fewer industrial disputes, there are higher real wages, there is lower inflation and there are lower interest rates and lower taxes for Australians. This is a government with a proud record that has given more back to Australian workers, businesses and families, and also to Australia’s future, as a result of the types of reforms we have introduced and particularly as a result of the workplace relations reforms that we have introduced.

There have been numerous waves of these reforms starting in 1996 when, as I acknowledged, the Australian Democrats helped the government. I hope that they will continue that constructive approach through the life of the government. Then there were the waterfront reforms in 1998 that did so much to drive productivity growth. Then there were the 2005 reforms, which have played an important role in driving productivity growth for Australia. Productivity growth is linked to wages because productivity gains ensure that Australians can enjoy growth in wages. That is how we get productivity growth—linking it to wages to ensure that we do not have inflation running out of control in this country. By keeping inflation under control, we have kept interest rates low and we have ensured that out-of-pocket expenses for Australian families have been kept low. We have done this by being the best friend of Australian workers and Australian families.

We have kept unemployment down to 4.2 per cent. When I was at university not all that long ago—a good few years, but not all that long ago—economics lecturers told me that full employment was somewhere down around maybe six or seven per cent. If you had a really generous lecturer they may have even talked about five per cent. None talked about it dropping below five per cent, yet today we enjoy an unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent. It is a fantastic achievement. The best thing the government can do as a friend of Australian workers and families is to achieve unemployment at such a low level. Long-term unemployment is down by 23 per cent over the life of this government to the lowest ever rate since such records were kept. Once again, it is an outstanding achievement that demonstrates benefits to Australian workers and families. Since 1996, in driving this jobs growth, more than two million jobs have been created. Overwhelmingly, most of them have been full time. Since the 2005 reforms, 326,000 or more extra jobs have been created and 85 to 90 per cent of them—277,000 plus—have been full-time jobs.

It is not just more jobs, though. We often hear that the Howard government’s IR reforms have allegedly driven down wages. In contrast, real wages have gone up. Jobs have gone up and wages have gone up. Real wages have grown by 20.8 per cent since 1996. That is more money in the pockets of Australian workers and families. Contrast that with the life of the Hawke-Keating government, when real wages growth was a measly 1.8 per cent. So we have got more people in work earning more than ever before, and they are actually getting to work. Industrial disputes are at the lowest level since 1913. The Howard government’s reforms to workplace relations have put more people in work and more money in their pockets and have ensured that business does not suffer the disputes of the past.

This is a government that approaches workplace relations issues from the perspective of working in the best interests of workers and businesses alike by putting jobs on the table for more Australians and by ensuring that businesses can benefit from greater productivity. We have had it suggested tonight that the IR reforms have increased red tape for business. I ask: if that is the case, why do Australian businesses want these reforms? Why do they want them kept and are scared of a change of government? They are scared of a change of government because they know they will be burdened again by having unions bashing down their doors and by not being able to enjoy the type of flexibility and the type of conditions that have allowed them to prosper. Indeed, they will have far more red tape back on the table than would be the case under this government.

The bill before us tonight is about making a good system that has evolved over the life of this government even better. As I said at the outset, it was never the intention of the government for core conditions to be traded away under these laws. Initially, we introduced the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard, the first step taken by a government to legislate a range of minimum conditions for Australian workers—to legislate the 38-hour week, to legislate parental leave, to legislate sick leave and carer leave, to legislate four weeks annual leave and to legislate for minimum or award rates of pay to be paid to workers. At that time we ensured that there would be a fair system for Australian workers. Since then, however, we have seen scare tactics from the other side and scare tactics from the union mates of those on the other side, and it has become necessary to ensure—so nobody can be under any doubt—that the system was not about seeing core award conditions traded away, so we introduced the new fairness test that will extend to some 7.5 million Australians. This is a fairness test that covers all those who could possibly need to be covered and ensures their wellbeing under these workplace relations laws.

So what are the protected award conditions under the fairness test that are added to those already protected conditions under the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard? They are penalty rates, shift and overtime loadings, monetary allowances, annual leave loadings, public holidays, rest breaks and incentive based payments. These are the things that workers can choose to trade off in the flexibility of the workplace relations system we have developed, but only if they are receiving fair monetary returns that they believe are worthwhile to them. It is about the relationship between employer and employee and about giving them flexibility of choice.

On the other side of the chamber we have a party whose approach to workplace relations does not have that commitment to fairness. It does not have that commitment to doing what is in the best interests of Australian workers, of Australian businesses and of Australia’s economy as a whole. Instead, we have a party that is beholden to the interests of the trade union movement. We already have amongst us many union officials who have graduated to work in the parliament for the Australian Labor Party in this chamber and in the other place. We have former ACTU secretaries and presidents galore; we have quite a good range of trade unionists working here. But at the next election we are going to see the biggest influx of union heavyweights into Labor ranks in a long time. There may always be a large number of union officials coming on board, but this will the biggest influx of union heavyweights.

We have Greg Combet, the ACTU Secretary, who has nudged out a Labor lower house member for preselection in her seat. She was nudged out very unceremoniously, might I say. We have Bill Shorten, the National Secretary of the AWU—the great media darling that he is—who is running in Victoria. We have Dougie Cameron of the AMWU seeking to join us in this place, and we have Richard Marles, another ACTU official, running in Victoria. Our good friends from the ETU have also got one on board. We hope that Kevin Harkins has better language and will not be as unparliamentary as some of his colleagues at the ETU. Then, in my home state, we have Mark Butler, State Secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, running in Port Adelaide. He is to be joined by Don Farrell of the shoppies union, who has managed to nudge out not just one colleague but two colleagues from the other side of this chamber—one is totally off the ticket—to take the No. 1 spot on the Labor ticket in South Australia. When you have the numbers in the Labor Party, you can trample all over anybody else, and that is certainly what Mr Farrell has done.

Why is it important? Why does it matter that all these union officials might be lining up on the other side of the fence? It is important because you have to question just who the boss is and who Australian voters should be listening to as we approach this Australian election. We have the official Labor Party policy, not always clearly enunciated and not always clearly spelt out. Nonetheless we have the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Gillard, of the other place out there promoting Labor policy, sometimes in agreement. They initially say they are going to ban AWAs, but then they say they will not ban them—they will ban them but they are going to throw a bone to the mining industry, particularly the mining industry in WA, and work out some type of phase-out arrangement. They say they will ban unfair dismissals—but not quite. They are going to throw a bone to small business and try to keep them there for some small businesses—but not many. Most of them who now enjoy the flexibility in the workplace that the abolition of unfair dismissal laws has brought them will have unfair dismissal laws imposed again. But the opposition are trying to pretend that there might be something for some of them.

When the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education heard from Mr Joe de Bruyn of the shoppies union, I asked him what their opinion was on unfair dismissal laws. He said that they should apply to every Australian workplace. When I asked him what his opinion was on AWAs, he said that they should be abolished lock, stock and barrel, along with all individual contracts. And when I asked him what Mr Don Farrell, his state secretary in South Australia, should do as Labor’s new Senate candidate, he said that he should adhere to SDA policy and reintroduce unfair dismissal laws across the board and abolish all individual agreements.

Ms Sharan Burrow from the ACTU came before us and was asked the same series of questions. Would she wipe out all individual agreements? Would she reintroduce unfair dismissal laws to all Australian workplaces? She said yes. When asked what she would expect of Mr Combet, her ACTU secretary, or the countless other affiliates to the ACTU who seek to join the Labor Party in forming a government, she said that she would expect them to uphold the union’s policy. So indeed we have a Labor Party that is expecting people on board who are about reintroducing the ultimate regulatory framework back into the Australian workplace relations system.

The Labor Party is from a union base with a depleting membership and a decreasing relevance to Australian society but, nonetheless, it is hoping to reintroduce the relevance of the unions. The Labor Party and the union movement are playing dirty tricks on workplace relations. They are running a scare campaign, spending millions and millions of dollars over the last couple of years to scare Australians over workplace relations. They have a war chest of tens of millions of dollars to outspend the coalition parties in the lead-up to the federal election. It is a Labor Party that wants to criticise government advertising that is informative but whose state parties go out and run full-page commercials featuring pictures of the Labor premiers. In fact, in my home state of South Australia it runs television advertisements where Labor Premier Mike Rann narrates the commercial. That blatant political advertising is something that should be stamped out; not the information campaigns carried out by this side of the House that do not feature such blatant political advertising. But, no, they have spent all this money trying to scare Australians.

Along the way they are happy to smear the odd business. We all know that Mr Rudd got upset at accusations levelled at a business in Queensland. We heard Senator Hurley tonight getting upset at any accusations or smearing against her family’s business interests. But they are quite happy to smear other small businesses around Australia whom they allege may have crossed the line in workplace relations laws without giving those small businesses the opportunity of recourse or the opportunity of not having their name dragged through the public mud before they have even heard the allegations.

Then of course we have the ACTU dirty tricks manual—the six-steps manual. Nowadays, we all like steps and they are going to the six-steps manual. It is what is unsaid in the six-steps manual that is important—the things that you are not meant to mention. Oddly enough, you are not meant to mention any of the things contained in the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. No, those things that are guaranteed by law you are not meant to mention—minimum wage, parental leave, 38-hour week et cetera.

This government is sincere about its attempts to grow jobs and to implement workplace relations laws that are in the best interests of Australians. We are committing funds as a result of this bill to ensure compliance with and enforcement of the new fairness test that is being applied. We have listened to some of the technical amendments proposed by the ACTU and others during the Senate committee inquiry and we are putting those forward to ensure that the bill does what we said it would do in the first place. We are doing this in the best interests of Australia. We face an opposition that do not necessarily know what they are or what they stand for—whether they are economic conservatives or Christian socialists. They are not quite sure. We know we are building fairness and flexibility for Australian employers and employees alike. We know that we are growing jobs in the Australian workplace and we know that we are growing real wages. I commend the bill to the House.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very closely to Senator Birmingham’s speech and I also listened very closely to his first speech and I must say this is a pale imitation of his first speech. Senator Birmingham talked about which party is best suited to government and I have to say that I am on the side of his Labor relative. We will have that discussion later. Senator Birmingham also mentioned that the ALP is all about reintroducing a regulatory framework. The ALP is about restoring fairness and balance into the workplace.

The Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007 is the bill tasked with introducing the government’s so-called fairness test. It seems ironic that, a little over a year since the Howard government introduced—and you must forgive me my use of apparently redundant terminology—Work Choices, the industrial relations package which stripped any concept of fairness from the Australian workplace, we should be debating a bill being marketed by the same government as one aimed at restoring fairness to the workplace. It begs the question: what has changed so dramatically in the past 12 months? Has the Howard government seen the error of its ways? Has it begun to realise that the Work Choices legislation in fact tipped the balance too far against Australian workers and their families by removing basic conditions like overtime and penalty rates, leave loadings, rostering protections and redundancy pay for many? Has it in fact begun to listen to the Australian public—the thousands of workers that have suffered as a direct result of the introduction of Work Choices?

I am afraid that in an election year the motivation for the government’s sudden change of heart is far more self-serving. This bill quite simply is aimed at wooing back the critical votes of Australian workers rather than restoring fairness to their workplaces. It is simply about creating an illusion of fairness rather than taking genuine steps to reinstate fairness and balance into the Australian industrial relations landscape. The fact that the Howard government has been so desperate to repackage and rebrand its tarnished Work Choices package is testament to this, as is the fact that the Howard government has recently spent a staggering $4.1 million of taxpayers’ money in one week on advertising aimed at convincing the Australian public that it has changed its ways. It is a desperate bid to claw back some industrial relations credibility.

The government’s blatant disregard for the committee process during the Senate inquiry into this bill is evidence of this. As the opposition senators’ report notes, the government announced the reference of the bill 18 days prior to its actual introduction, giving submitters only seven days to provide submissions and the committee only 10 days in which to consider such submissions, conduct a public hearing and produce a report. This level of arrogance does not reflect a government that is genuinely committed to getting it right and listening to the views of the Australian people; it reflects a government that has become complacent and out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent and a government that is willing to use its control in this Senate to railroad legislation through to suit its own political agenda.

The simple fact of the matter is: this bill, along with the rebranding of the government’s failed Work Choices package and the government’s latest stint of industrial relations advertising, is all about appearances. The government wants the Australian public to believe that its approach to industrial relations in this country has changed. While appearances can sometimes be deceiving, I am quite sure that the Australian public is well aware that in the case of the Howard government a leopard can never, and will never, change its spots.

We were all witness to the Howard government’s tricky pre-election tactics in the lead-up to the last federal election. Back then they were happy to keep the Australian public in the dark about their planned Work Choices legislation until they regained power. The first the Australian public heard of Work Choices was after the votes had been cast. Why should this election be any different? While in the lead-up to this election the Howard government are more than happy to create a temporary illusion of the inclusion of fairness in their industrial relations plans, you can be quite sure that, if they happen to win government again, this front, this illusion, will swiftly disappear, as will any concept of fairness in the Australian workplace. Do not be fooled by the spin. If the government are re-elected at this year’s election, make no mistake, it is likely that they will make even harsher changes to the industrial relations laws and the rights of working Australians in this country.

The government’s track record since the last election proves that it simply cannot be trusted to keep its promises when it comes to industrial relations in this country. It told us all during the introduction to its failed and recently rebranded Work Choices changes last year that they were necessary to boost productivity and to support economic growth in Australia. It claimed that they would benefit Australian workers and their families, giving them greater flexibility, more room to bargain with their employers and, most importantly, a greater degree of choice. A year on, it appears that little of this was true. A year on, it is yet to produce a single scrap of evidence to suggest that Work Choices was necessary to boost productivity. In fact, figures show that Australian productivity actually went backwards in the six months following the commencement of Work Choices and is presently at just 1.5 per cent, compared to a historical average of 2.3 per cent. A year on, the government is also yet to produce any hard, credible evidence to suggest that the Work Choices changes have, as the government claims, greatly benefited Australian workers and their families by providing them with a greater degree of opportunity and choice in the workplace. Indeed, a year on, sadly, the exact opposite is true.

Australian workers have suffered since the introduction of Work Choices. They have been stripped of their basic rights and conditions and, along with them, any degree of leverage to bargain or to exercise choice when it comes to negotiating with their employers. We only have to look at the myriad examples that have received media attention in the short time that Work Choices has been in place. The case of Darrell Lea workers is a good example. They were stripped of basic conditions like penalty rates for not even a 1c per hour increase. Cases like this serve as an illustration of just how far the Work Choices laws have tilted the balance against Australian workers. There have no doubt been numerous other unreported cases across the country of Australian workers being sacked without recourse or being forced to give up their basic award conditions with no power to bargain for compensation and no chance at exercising any choice in the matter. A year on and Work Choices has ensured this type of situation has, sadly, become the norm.

Workers in regional areas like Tasmania who are members of smaller communities—where unemployment rates are generally higher—that have suffered under Work Choices have generally been too scared to speak out about their experiences. The nature of these smaller communities ensures that workers do not want to risk victimisation in their workplace for speaking out against their employers. Likewise, if they are unfortunate enough to suffer the loss of their job because of a strategic company restructure, workers in regional areas are unlikely to speak out because of fear of being labelled a troublemaker and the risk of not being able to find another employer willing to take them on. This is just the way it is under Work Choices.

The government is continuing to deceive the Australian people about the real impact of Work Choices on workers and their families. A review conducted for the Victorian government on the impact of Work Choices highlighted in the inquiry into the bill the real impact the changes are having on workers and their families. The review ‘found that the wages share of national income was at a 35-year low, while the profit share was at an all-time high’. It ‘indicated that this was an extremely unusual occurrence in an economy experiencing low unemployment and labour market shortages’. It ‘also found that protected award conditions were being abolished and that the lowest paid employees were the most disadvantaged’. It found that workers in low-paying industries such as hospitality and retail have suffered wages declines, probably because of the withdrawal of overtime and penalty rates, and that women in particular have suffered under AWAs. The review found:

... WorkChoices, AWAs and, it appears, other non-union agreements have led to the loss of conditions of employment, particularly in areas like penalty rates, overtime rates and shift allowances. This has ... led to lower rates of pay than workers would otherwise have enjoyed, particularly by comparison with if they were employed under collective agreements.

It concluded:

Vulnerable groups, including women and workers in low wage industries, appear to have been particularly disadvantaged.

Only a year on and this is what Australian workers and their families have been forced to endure under the Howard government’s workplace relations changes. On Friday, 4 May, after a multitude of such evidence indicating that under Work Choices Australian workers are being stripped of their basic award conditions, the Prime Minister announced that the government would be introducing a so-called fairness test to apply to workplace agreements of all employees earning up to $75,000 per annum. The basic premise of this so-called fairness test, as I understand it, is that workers who are forced to give up any of their basic award conditions under the workplace agreement should receive fair compensation in return for that loss. To ensure that this compensation is in fact provided, each new workplace agreement for employees earning $75,000 or less will, as a consequence of this bill being passed, have to be lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate—rebranded the Workplace Authority—and satisfy a so-called fairness test.

Based on its simplistic explanation the proposal sounds reasonable. However, one does not have to dig very far beneath the surface to discover that this bill is, once again, all about form and not substance. It is all about facilitating the illusion of fairness. There is nothing contained in this bill that will remove the imbalance caused by the Howard government’s industrial relations reforms and restore fairness in the Australian workplace.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Carol, you don’t believe that!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do believe that. And I do not think you believe what you are saying.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, through the chair.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Acting Deputy President. As the shadow treasurer rightly stated, this bill is all about clever politics. It is not about good policy; it is simply about creating a perception. Indeed, a closer analysis of this bill proves that the so-called fairness test is a fake. It proves that nothing about the application of this test is in fact fair. It proves that while, in some limited cases, the test may produce a pro-worker result, overall the test is designed to keep the industrial relations balance strongly tilted in favour of the employer. The result? A hollow promise designed to attract votes but giving little in return. The devil is in the detail.

Under the proposed fairness test, if a workplace agreement excludes or modifies one of the limited protected award conditions, the same agreement must provide fair compensation for the loss of that so-called protected condition. The agreement, as stated earlier, must be submitted to the Workplace Authority, which is to determine whether it has in fact provided fair compensation for the loss. However, the government has provided no detail of exactly how the fairness of the compensation will be determined. It has given no indication of what type of criteria will be used to assess whether in fact the compensation is fair.

While the government has said that the Workplace Authority will consider the industry, location and economic circumstances of the business and the specific employment circumstances of the employee, it has not indicated how these matters will be taken into account and what weight will be given to the employers’ circumstances compared to the employees’ circumstances. Compounding this convenient lack of detail, which is basically demonstrated in nearly all federal government policy, is the fact that the test only provides for ‘fair’ compensation and not ‘equal’ compensation. As the government has not detailed exactly how the fairness or otherwise of the compensation will be determined, it appears that it has conveniently created somewhat of a black hole in which such decisions will be determined—surprise, surprise. With little guidance as to how the decision will be made, the workplace agreement will be handed into the Workplace Authority and a decision will be handed out—effectively with no transparency and no accountability, with little or no chance for review, no chance for reasons to be provided for their decisions and no reasonable appeal process. How fair is this?

Another major concern that the Labor Party has with this proposal is the fact that it may allow employers to effectively pay lip-service to the idea of compensation and provide hollow promises in exchange for the loss of protected award conditions. For example, it has been suggested that a mere offer of a job by an employer may be considered sufficient compensation for the loss of any protected award conditions by a prospective employee. It has also been suggested that it may be deemed sufficient if the employer offers an employee something that provides no subjective benefit to them. The example that has been used by my colleagues is that of a car-parking space being offered to an employee who does not own a car. While this may seem plain ridiculous, if the Workplace Authority takes an objective approach to assessing the fairness of compensation without making inquires with the employee as to whether the compensation is in fact subjectively fair, under the government’s current proposal these sort of situations will likely end up occurring.

Hollow promises and the illusion of fairness—this is what we have come to with the government. The reality is that the proposed fairness test is not likely to provide any genuine or fair compensation to Australian workers forced to give up their basic award conditions. It was simply designed to act as a bargaining tool for this year’s up-and-coming federal election. In reality nothing about the test or the process involved in applying it is fair. Do you really think that all Australian workers will be in any place to negotiate what they consider fair and equal compensation for the loss of any one or all of their protected award conditions with their employer? Do you really think that the average Australian worker earning $75,000 per annum or less will be able to afford to mount an appeal to the High Court of Australia to review the determinations made by the Workplace Authority? Of course not. However, the Howard government are happy to create the illusion that they can.

In the current Australian workplace, which has been severely distorted by the introduction of Work Choices, the majority of Australian workers simply do not have the power to negotiate and, for what it is worth, do not have any choice. This is the reality of the Australian workplace, the reality that the Howard government have for far too long ignored. Indeed, it has arguably been primarily due to their ignorance of the fact that workers simply do not possess bargaining power equal to employers that they have created an industrial relations system that weighs heavily on the worker and their family.

The hollow promise contained in the bill can and will do nothing to shift this balance. It may provide some form of minor relief for a handful of employees but it does nothing to address the severe imbalance or inequality that has been created in the Australian workplace since the Howard government took power. You can be sure that this inequality will remain if the government should retain power. Why? Because its ignorance of the inherently unequal relationship between workers and employers blinds it to the fact that its system has failed and is in desperate need of a major overhaul.

Only Labor can be trusted with the task of restoring the balance to the Australian workplace. Indeed, recognition of the inherently unequal bargaining position of workers lies at the party’s very heart. It is on the basis of this recognition that Labor proposes to scrap Work Choices and return fairness to the Australian workplace. This simply is not going to happen under the Howard government. No tinkering around the edges of Work Choices, as this bill does, will lift the heavy burden currently being placed on Australian workers. You cannot, as the Howard government is attempting to do with this bill, make a system fair simply by creating an illusion and spending an extra $370.3 million doing it. What is needed is a rethink and a restructure from the core—recognition of the true nature of the relationship between workers and employers and the establishment of a system that accommodates the needs of both. That is exactly what Labor proposes to do. (Time expired)

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

The government made a mess of its Work Choices laws and it only has itself to blame. From day one, Family First had serious concerns about the changes, which undermined family life, and we said so. We voted against the legislation because, as we said from the beginning, the government went too far when it removed guarantees for basic conditions for Australian workers—conditions such as overtime, penalty rates and compensation for working on public holidays.

It was no surprise that the Work Choices laws were so unpopular. Australians were rightly concerned about having to bargain for basic conditions that previously were guaranteed. Australian workers and their families did not vote for the Howard government so that they would be forced to bargain for a meal break or extra pay for working after midnight. The economy might be going well at the moment, but families are understandably concerned about what might happen when there is a downturn and jobs are at risk. They are also concerned about what sort of workforce their children will be entering. My wife, Sue, and I share these concerns for our three teenage children.

It was obvious that Work Choices had major flaws and that Australians wanted change, yet despite this the government stubbornly refused to budge. Meanwhile, the Labor opposition revealed that it would rip up the laws, which is reckless and not a satisfactory solution. Australians want to know that problems are being fixed, which is why Family First introduced legislation to improve Work Choices and get a much better deal for Australian families and small businesses. Family First’s bill would have ensured that workers who have to work on public holidays would be guaranteed a minimum of another day off paid at time and a half, that workers would be guaranteed an unpaid meal break of at least 30 minutes after five hours, that workers would be guaranteed overtime at a minimum rate of time and a half, that workers who work anti-family hours would be guaranteed penalty rates at a minimum of time and a half, and that workers would be guaranteed their full redundancy entitlements. Family First’s legislation struck the right balance between the needs of workers and the needs of small businesses, most of which are family businesses.

Finally, just weeks after Family First introduced its bill, the government admitted that it had gone too far and that changes would be made. The government admitted that Australian workers were not adequately protected and it announced its fairness test, which in some ways is similar to the old no disadvantage test. The Senate is in the unusual position of considering legislation that seeks to fix Work Choices and the problems caused by abolishing the no disadvantage test and slashing the number of guaranteed conditions from 20 to five. The government has backtracked and introduced a fairness test to protect workers, but surely what it should have done to fix its mess is reinstate guarantees for the key basic conditions it removed. That would have been much easier and simpler.

Family First welcomes the government’s changes, but we have several concerns with the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007 and fears that some workers and their families could still be worse off because of inadequate protections. Firstly, Family First is concerned that the government’s new fairness test applies only to Australian workers earning up to $75,000. Why not to all workers? Surely the principle of fairness applies to everyone, not just to those who earn a particular income. The government says the issue is one of cost, but Family First believes the primary focus should be on ensuring fairness.

It is important to stress that most employers do the right thing, and that most workers do the right thing as well. But we need to be mindful of those employers and workers who do not do the right thing. We need to ensure that the rights of workers and employers are protected when there are people trying to abuse the system. Every Australian worker deserves protection, as it gives them and their families peace of mind. Sadly, under Work Choices some workers are protected while others miss out. Family First is concerned about reports that, over time, fewer Australian workers will be protected by the fairness test due to bracket creep and the fact that the $75,000 threshold is not indexed. Family First is also alarmed by reports that workers could be forced to challenge rulings of the government’s Workplace Authority through the High Court.

Another concern is that the fairness test does not address the inadequacy of current protections for workers’ redundancy entitlements. In a bid to avoid another Tristar debacle, Family First will be moving amendments to this bill to double the protection period for workers’ redundancy benefits from 12 months to two years. The Family First Workplace Relations (Restoring Family Work Balance) Amendment Bill 2007 proposed that the period be extended to five years but the government would not support this. We must tighten Work Choices to deter employers from trying to avoid paying workers their full redundancy entitlements, which are vital to families if workers lose their jobs. Currently, redundancy payments are protected by law for up to 12 months after workplace agreements are terminated, but 12 months is not adequate protection, as the Tristar example clearly shows. Tristar is trying to slash its redundancy bill by keeping its 29 staff at its Sydney plant without providing any work for them. Under its workplace agreement which expired in February, the workers would be entitled to a total of about $4.5 million if they were made redundant now, but they will only get a quarter of that, or just over $1 million, if they are made redundant more than a year after the employment contract expires. Family First commends the amendments to senators.

Finally, Family First is concerned that Work Choices gives employers the green light to sack workers under the guise of restructuring. Two recent cases in Victoria have highlighted the need for the Work Choices laws to be tightened. In the first case the Industrial Relations Commission decided that under Work Choices a company can sack a worker and readvertise the same job on a much lower salary; as happened to Melbourne father of two Andrew Cruickshank, who worked for Priceline. The commission revealed that under Work Choices it does not have to consider whether a valid reason existed as long as the sacking was for operational reasons. These are much broader than the operational requirements that used to apply. Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey admitted that this was not the intention of the legislation, but the government has not done anything about it. The question is, why not? In the second case before the Industrial Relations Commission, the Weekend Australian reported:

Businesses have been given the green light to sack workers under Work Choices laws even if they breached employee contracts, and regardless of how badly a worker is treated when being fired, the nation’s industrial tribunal has ruled. A company only needed to prove it had restructured a business and did not have to prove financial difficulty.

This second case is even more disturbing because the company was not arguing that it has restructured its business due to financial problems. Family First is concerned by these cases where livelihoods have been destroyed because Work Choices has allowed employers to treat workers in such a shameful way. Fairness and genuine protection for workers and their families must always underpin Australia’s workplace relations system, not the survival of the fittest.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commence my remarks on the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007 by congratulating the Labor members on the Employment Workplace Relations and Education Committee on their minority report on this bill. All of them come with extensive experience of not only actually having a real job—as opposed to what people claim we do in this place—but also representing the needs of workers: something that, according to those opposite, we should all be ashamed of. So I commend to the Senate their report and a number of the submissions that the inquiry received, although, as has been outlined by my good friend Senator Carol Brown, the inquiry was, as it often is in this place, unnecessarily hasty.

Those of us that were involved in the original debate for an industrial relations system that dare not speak its name anymore—Work Choices—will recall in particular Senator Abetz, when he had carriage of this legislation, assuring us that we did not need to discuss fairness because it was implied. We did not need a safety net, we did not need fairness and we did not need pay equity because no-one would behave in an unethical manner. No employer would try and exploit an employee—none of the examples that workers’ representatives brought to the committee and brought to members of this place would ever take place, and those of us on this side of the chamber and from the trade union movement and other worker representative organisations were being unnecessarily alarmist. Well, it would seem that perhaps we do need fairness—or perhaps we just need a political fix. Perhaps people do not see the original legislation—the system that dare not speak its name—as being fair and balanced, and therefore there is a political problem. Though those opposite try and make much of the booming economy and the resources sector in my home state, there is a political problem there when it comes to fairness and the treatment of workers in occupations where they are not as well equipped in representing their own interests—the bargaining is not that even. So this is a political fix to a political problem. It is not a real fix, nor is it a practical fix to a real problem—that was the removal in the first place of the no disadvantage test. To see that, you only have to compare the words of the Prime Minister with what is going on in the workplace. On 4 May 2007, when the Prime Minister made the announcement of this political fix, he said at his press conference:

But where the penalty rates et cetera are taken out or are modified in any way there’ll be a fairness test and the fairness test will inquire whether adequate compensation has been provided in return. Now in the great bulk of cases that compensation will take the form probably of an increase in the hourly rate to take account of the non payment of penalty rates but the compensation can take a non-monetary form and in examining whether adequate compensation’s been paid the authority will have to look at all aspects of the agreement. In some cases extremely flexible working arrangements can be given in return for the non payment of penalty rates.

What does that mean to the average person who is trying to get a job as a childcare worker, who wants to work as a part-time or casual shop assistant or who is working in the hospitality industry? How do they negotiate their way through that? We then learn that, if they do not think the authority has examined their individual agreement properly in ensuring they get adequate compensation, their remedy is to take it to the High Court. Well, that is fair, isn’t it! Talk about out of touch and talk about desperation.

The reality is that this piece of legislation will simply keep a weak or nearly non-existent safety net in operation and the bill does absolutely nothing to provide for a genuinely stronger safety net. That is the fairness that Senator Abetz said we did not need to have in the original Work Choices legislation.

Then we come to the effectiveness of the government advertising. You can always tell it is a political fix when it is advertised before we see the legislation. You absolutely know it is a political fix to a political problem when the ads are on television before the committee can even see the draft legislation.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You absolutely know that it is a political fix. But I have news for some of the people opposite, particularly those who like to talk about my home state and about the resources sector. There is much made of the need for productivity in that sector. Your advertising does not seem to have connected with the mining sector. They do not seem to have got this idea that there is actually going to be a fairness test. We were told by the Prime Minister on 4 May that this new fairness test would come into effect on 7 May. After 7 May I was contacted by a family from the northern suburbs of Perth. The main breadwinner in that family is a fly-in, fly-out worker in the resources sector. We all know that people who do that work receive a handsome monetary reward. That is in large part to compensate them for being removed from their families, for the extended hours and for the danger associated with the work they do. The main breadwinner in this family works at a mine site in the north-west. It is a long-established mine site, not one of the new fly-by-night mine sites that may have been established. It did have some employees still on collective agreements, but it offered an AWA to the last of their workers on collective agreements. The main highlight of the AWA that these workers were offered—and I have a copy of it—is $8,000 a year less than they were originally getting. This is after 7 May. This worker has been offered $8,000 a year less, for more days on and fewer days off than his original collective agreement, and a change to his on-call allowance. This is ‘fairness’. This is an ‘increase in productivity’. We know the resources sector and we know how those opposite want to achieve their increase in productivity. What they actually want the hardworking people in Australia to do is to work longer hours for less money. That, technically I guess, does increase productivity. That is how they want to increase productivity. They do not want an increase in productivity to rely on the use of new technology or on the development of managerial expertise and flexibility—no, what they want is hardworking tradespeople to work longer hours for less money, and that is the way they will get their productivity increase. If that is the way you are going to run the Australian economy, it is little wonder fewer people want to vote for you than last time.

So it was with the AWA that this family was offered: you are offered it, you are given five minutes to look at it and it is ‘sign or resign’ and you are not allowed to take it with you. The agreement that was to be signed in late May states that ‘the agreement shall apply for a period of five years from the date of the agreement’. So this worker, who was to cop an $8,000 a year pay cut, was going to be locked into that pay schedule for five years. As I said, they receive a handsome monetary reward. It is perhaps not as handsome as those of us in this place, but it is handsome. So the agreement was to go to five years from the date of signing it. The workers were to work in a roster system ‘as determined appropriate for the operation of the mine’—there was no consultation with them about the flexibility they may need for their families; it was about the flexibility of the operation. If you wanted to terminate your agreement as a worker you were required to provide four weeks notice in writing. However, if the company wanted to terminate your agreement, they only had to give you one week’s notice. One week for the employer; four weeks for the worker. That is increased productivity. That is an increased fairness test.

This fairness test is not even working at the top end of the labour market. This was an individual contract that only applied to the tradesmen working at that particular mine site. People talk long and hard about the difficulties in attracting skilled labour. I can tell you it is little wonder with the way this mining company treats its staff. It was only offered to tradesmen and the base salary was $87,500 per annum. As I said, a handsome reward—no doubt about that, although not as handsome as the reward we get in this place. But in exchange for that they only give you one week’s notice if they want to terminate the agreement but you have to give four. And you work the roster that suits the flexibility of the operation. It lists the salaries. I have quoted the lowest one. The top one is $99,500. That is the top of the range for the most senior tradesmen. I bet this mob will be asking to bring in 457 visa workers next, because no-one will want to sign this agreement. But, anyway, in addition to getting paid the above salaries, if you are placed on an on-call roster and required to attend to jobs outside the normal working hours—and that is your 12-hour shift, because all of this is a certain number of days on, a certain number of days off—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many days? You’re quoting so many hours, but how many days?

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many days? A minimum of eight days on, 12 hours a day, Senator Parry—for $87,500!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Through the chair, Senators.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, in addition to your $87,500 for your eight days on, if you are placed on an on-call roster and required to attend to jobs outside of normal working hours, you will be paid an additional $1,500 per annum whilst you are on this on-call roster. So you do your 12-hour shift, then you are on the on-call roster and you can get called out whenever they want, and you get the princely sum of $1,500 per annum to compensate you for that. This is on top of the eight grand pay cut, the increased number of days on and the fewer number of days off that they have. And the agreement says, ‘This payment is in recognition of the requirement for you to be fit and available to be called out and that you attend the call-outs as required.’ So the maximum a tradesman at that level is going to get is $87,500 plus the $1,500 call out for a 12-hour shift—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s pretty good.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry, you think that is pretty good, do you? You want to sign up to that, do you?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you get days off?

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, you do get days off. You get to work eight days in a row for a minimum of 12 hours a day on a mine site and then, goodness me, they give you a few days off! Gee, isn’t that fantastic? I do not know why more people are not—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Webber and Senator Parry, any comments will be passed through the chair.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. That is the way this company and this government want to increase productivity and apply fairness in the workplace. As I said, the workers who were offered this AWA were on a collective agreement. They were on it until mid-May and then they were offered a cut in pay, they had to work increased hours and they had their on-call allowances cut as well, and that supposedly meets the fairness test.

Even the Financial Review when it was discussing the government’s changes to this legislation reported that the mere offer of a job may be considered sufficient compensation to offset any loss of protected award conditions. How ridiculous is that? As was highlighted by the SDA and others who submitted to the inquiry—and Senator Birmingham mentioned them—how on earth is a shop assistant who has had their compensation cut and is then offered a job going to challenge the Workplace Authority if it determines that that is fair and reasonable compensation for a cut? A tradesman who works in the north-west of Western Australia struggles with the concept that this is a fair way of approaching things, and he earns $87,500. That is a healthy sum of money. There is no doubt about that. I can tell you that, to work on a mine site, I would want a healthy sum of money too. We all know that it is one of the most dangerous places to work. You should be paid a healthy sum of money to work there. You should particularly be paid a healthy sum of money if you have to be flown away from your family and support to do that work. You certainly should not, in a time of record profits and record economic growth, have your salary cut by an employer and then told that is fair.

These workers were given about five minutes to look at their AWA. If they did not want to sign it, they were told they could not work there any more. They were given the AWA on the mine site, so they could not consult with family and they could not get any independent advice as they were up in the north-west. They were told to sign or resign. This family obviously chose not to sign. Unbeknownst to the mine concerned, this family took their copy of the AWA away with them, which is how we know what the real game is with these people.

The Prime Minister’s announcement states that the Workplace Authority—although, as Senator Carol Brown has reminded us, it has just been through a bit of rebadging and renaming, a bit like the system of Work Choices that dare not speak its name—will consider industry location and the economic circumstances of the business and the specific employment circumstances or opportunities of the employee when making its determination. It will take into account all relevant working arrangements and entitlements, including family-friendly conditions. I do not know how the AWA I have been talking about fits into the concept of family-friendly conditions. A cut in pay, increased hours at work, a decrease in the number of days off between shifts—how are they family friendly? A cut in pay to work in one of the most dangerous occupations we have in Australia is not family friendly.

It is not clear to any of us here how the Workplace Authority will actually take any of those measures into account. For example, it is not clear whether the forms accompanying the lodgement of an agreement will require the employer to detail their financial position or provide detailed personal information about the circumstances of the employee. Now perhaps we will be told by Senator Abetz that we do not need to worry about that either, just like the first time we looked at Work Choices and we were told we did not have to worry about fairness because no-one would behave badly and we were just being hysterical. No-one would cut penalty rates, he told us, and it was just completely silly to want to insert the concept of fairness into the legislation. But, lo and behold, look at what we have here. This is perhaps another issue that the government will have to come back and fix because no-one knows whether the detail is right and no-one knows how it is going to work. When you advertise a concept before you have actually got the detail it is no wonder people are a bit sceptical and cynical.

It is not clear to us whether the Workplace Authority will make inquiries with the employee as to whether the supposedly fair compensation provided to the employee under the workplace agreement is considered by the employee to be of genuine benefit. Senator Carol Brown mentioned the example of providing a car park to someone who does not have a car. How is that fair and reasonable compensation? That is providing someone with a completely meaningless entitlement for their circumstances.

It is not clear whether an employee will have the opportunity to appeal a decision by the Workplace Authority, although we were told that perhaps they could take it to the High Court. That is just completely ridiculous. Last time we were told that, if someone did not like their AWA, they could go to the Federal Court. That is a completely nonsensical arrangement for low-paid workers anyway. How could someone earning the princely sum of $12 an hour afford to take their employer to the Federal Court because they have concerns about the legality of their AWA? It is even more ludicrous to say: ‘If you do not like the determination that the authority has made on the fairness or otherwise of your compensation with the new AWA, you can appeal that decision in the High Court.’ That is completely ridiculous.

It is also not clear to us how the $75,000 threshold will be determined. In the example that I have given, that threshold cuts in and the government’s proposal does not do anything to address this family’s concerns. This family is suffering from the rough end of the supposed Work Choices. It still really is Work Choices, much as those opposite do not want to call it that. (Time expired)

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

I rise to make some comments on this piece of legislation before the chamber this evening. The first thing I must address, of course, is the title of the legislation itself: the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007. If ever there has been a misnomer, that is it—‘A Stronger Safety Net’—because that implies that there was a safety net there in the first place. Of course, if one knows anything about the Work Choices legislation, one knows that there was not even a skerrick of protection for the low paid—those people most vulnerable in their employment situations in the community out there in the real world.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

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

That is the truth of the matter, Senator Parry. You should come down and see what the real world is about, not live up there in your lofty tower. Find out that in the real world the people who are most vulnerable have been attacked by the Work Choices legislation and have had their basic and fundamental conditions undermined. For the government to talk about ‘A Stronger Safety Net’ is a complete untruth at best. There has never been a safety net with the current Work Choices legislation. The government rejected any concept of a safety net when the Work Choices legislation passed through this chamber over 18 months ago. There was no thought ever taken by this government of giving proper protection for those people who are the weak and vulnerable in the workforce.

I have heard the arguments over a long period of time, because I have a history as a long-practising trade union person, whether it be in a full-time or part-time capacity. I have seen governments of all persuasions go through the issue of industrial relations over a long period of time and come up with many schemes. There was Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who came up with the much vaunted voluntary employment agreements back in the 1980s. What were voluntary employment agreements? Nothing more than AWAs. What were voluntary employment agreements designed to do? Attack the most vulnerable. They were nothing more and nothing less than AWAs. There was no concept of a safety net in the Bjelke-Petersen era; there is no concept of protection for people in the Howard government era either. That has never been part of the mantra of the coalition forces, whether they be in places like Queensland or in federal government. The fact of life is that if you were skilled, if you were well educated and if you were well placed you could defend yourself most admirably and most adequately in negotiating the terms and conditions of employment that you might seek. However, if you were weak, vulnerable, unskilled or semiskilled then you were exposed. That is what this government cannot come to grips with. You have never been out there. You have never met the unskilled or the semiskilled. You have never met the vulnerable. You have never met those people who are in precarious employment.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

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

You do not understand what precarious employment is about. Senator Parry, I will come back to you outside the chamber and tell you how precarious your employment is. But that is for another time. It is not because of me; it is because of you. The driving force in the Bjelke-Petersen era and in the era of this government is supposedly in the name of lifting productivity and profits. But, of course, the people who have been asked to sacrifice the wherewithal to generate that so-called productivity lift have been those who are in vulnerable employment.

Of course, the award over a long period of time was a safety net. It was always available to employers to go beyond the safety net—to pay in excess of the safety net and to give conditions of employment they were far superior to and far better than those that may have prevailed in the award. That was the case back in the eighties when VEAs were around.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

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

Senator Bernardi, you had probably not even been born.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had!

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

I am being kind to you. That is also the case in the current situation. The safety net has been withdrawn by the withdrawal of very basic and very simple award conditions. Obviously, if you destroy the safety net then you can go below. So to come here now and feign that one is putting in a stronger safety net is just a nonsense—absolute nonsense—when there was no safety net there in the first place. It is always good for people such as Senator Parry and others to feign that they are the protectors of the workers. Of course, they have never done anything like that themselves. As a matter of fact, the first worker they meet will be the first. You would not even recognise one, Senator Parry. Anyway, that is for another time and another day. The simple fact of life is that those people who are in vulnerable industries, such as those who work in the retail industry, are in real trouble indeed when you hear about the likes of the Darrell Lea episode.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

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

Anyone with a sense of justice, equity and fair-mindedness, Senator Bernardi, would realise what that agreement was about. It was not about delivering fairness, equity and justice to people. The sooner you wake up to it, the better, because you should understand, as much as anyone else. You have got an intellect. Come to grips with the facts. Even Senator Mason here knows that these people, under the Darrell Lea or even under the Spotlight agreement, were not in receipt of fairness, justice or any equity whatsoever. They were simply the subject of a rip-off by their employers. Fortunately some of those matters have been redressed. This legislation has been portrayed by some as a backflip. That is complete nonsense. This maintains the harsh, unfair, unjust and extreme IR laws—the Work Choices laws—that this government put in place back in November 2005.

That the government have gone down this path is a hypocritical act. It is of course welcomed that they think there might be a need for a sense of fairness, equity and justice, but this is too little too late. The government have let a wash of AWAs go past already, and those AWAs are not subject to any fairness test that this legislation might pretend to put in place. Purely and simply, the legislation will take effect from a prospective date. That is, of itself, insufficient—if there was unfairness in the legislation, that unfairness should have been redressed in the original legislation, not some 15 to 18 months after the legislation was originally passed. This is purely and simply a political stunt by the government to try to crawl back in the polls. That is all it is about—it is a political move on the part of the government, and I can understand why the government is making this cynical political move.

This does not restore anything to those who have already signed away conditions of employment through an AWA. To believe that these people entered into it necessarily in a willing and helpful fashion is quite nonsensical when one knows that many of these people are in a vulnerable position and would have to enter into an agreement of their employer’s making and choice rather than to sacrifice any income. It does not save anyone who comes on as a new employee and is forced onto an AWA, and it does nothing at all for those people on NAPSAs—notional agreements preserving state awards. Why? Because these cease to exist from 27 March 2009.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the union bosses, they will cease to exist.

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

I am glad you are enjoying this, Senator Bernardi, because you need a little bit of education. The fact is that NAPSAs will not be affected by this legislation. From 27 March 2009 there will be a minimum of five conditions under the Work Choices act, and they will apply. Therefore, those people who are on NAPSAs—and there are a large number of people on them—will suffer a fate which is worse than death in a sense because this so-called legislation which is meant to be a stronger safety net will not apply to them at all. The so-called fairness test will be seen as nothing more than a cynical move on the part of this government, as it should be.

If equity, fairness and good conscience had prevailed in the first instance, this measure would not be up for determination now. But equity, fairness and good conscience did not apply and so the government have brought this legislation before this chamber in a very cynical way to try to claw back in the polls, where I understand they are not travelling too well. A no disadvantage test was deliberately and consciously left out of Work Choices. It was not left out by mistake; it was left out deliberately. The government had the opportunity when the original legislation was put forward of doing that very thing, as Senator Bartlett reminded the chamber. There is no doubt that the abuses that people have suffered as a result of the Work Choices legislation will never be undone with this new legislation. This legislation will not redress any of the problems that people have faced as a result of signing up to AWAs since the inception of this legislation.

It is only a politically expedient move on the part of this government to see that this legislation is passed before the Senate gets up this week. There is no real value in the legislation in the longer term because this government has no heart in seeing that those who are vulnerable, who are unskilled and who are in precarious employment are protected.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Such as a few Labor senators.

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

I am glad that you have interjected. At least it shows someone has a bit of sense around here, Senator Bernardi. The old saying is very true in this instance: you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. The absolute proof of the pudding will be that most of the people who were fooled in the first instance by the language of this government in the sale of Work Choices will know that there is absolute hollowness in that language.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, before you move the adjournment, I seek leave to incorporate two speeches in this debate—those of Senator Wortley and Senator Hutchins.

Leave granted.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I rise to add my voice to those already heard in this place on the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007.

Labors Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, the member for Lalor, Julia Gillard couldn’t have said it more clearly when she said of this bill:

“The bill is not about the government providing fair compensation to employees; it is about the government hiding the unfairness of its legislation until after the next election”.

How can a ‘stronger’ safety net be provided in a situation where there is under the Governments WorkChoices... no existing safety net? In a situation where no such safety net was ever in place, or indeed was envisaged?

This bill provides us yet another episode in the saga of an increasingly tired... increasingly poll-driven Government... desperately casting around for a way to make its WorkChoices... (and even that loaded term has recently been jettisoned... ), its WorkChoices legislation more palatable...to a community which has woken up to the Government’s real intentions with regard to industrial relations...

Australian workers recognise the fact that Work Choices... that great misnomer... is unfair in its application and takes away from their job security...

Far from providing opportunities for workers...choice for workers... flexibility for workers... The introduction of WorkChoices has seen the removal of pay and condition standards of tens of thousands of Australian workers including penalty rates, holiday loading, redundancy pay, 38 hours per week of ordinary time, and unfair dismissal protection for workers employed by an organisation with 100 or fewer employees.

It’s now widely acknowledged that WorkChoices has facilitated...paved the way for... industrial relations changes which actively disadvantage Australian workers...not only does it disadvantage Australian workers, but it disadvantages also, their families...

Thousands of Australian workers recognise the reality of this and they overwhelmingly reject the scheme....they understood at its introduction, as they understand today, that equality in the bargaining power of an employee and employer does not exist...

And now, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has had to admit that there were ‘mistakes’ in the legislation—mistakes for which he of course takes no responsibility, having taken on the job of selling this abysmal scheme ...

A scheme which saw the government spending millions of dollars of tax payers money to implement... and then promote through major advertising campaigns...

It doesn’t matter how the Minister dresses it up... or dresses himself up for that matter, Shreck ears or a donkeys tail... WorkChoices and its impact on workers is indisputably bad...

In putting forward the Governments ‘fairness test’, Minister Hockey would have us swallow the line that the amendments before us today were not brought about by the results of pre –election polls.. .

I call on my colleagues in this place to consider whether we would not be having this debate today, if this were not an election year.

Does anyone really imagine that should the Government be returned to office at the forthcoming election, it would not enact even more draconian IR laws...

Senator Minchin told the HR Nicholls Society that Workchoices was only the

instalment in the governments IR plans... Indeed, the Treasurer has indicated that he could not guarantee that there would be no further changes if the government were re-elected and he was Prime Minister. He declined to speculate on what might happen after the election...

I turn now to the detail of the bill. What does the bill achieve? It proposes that agreements for employees earning up to $75,000 per annum be lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate, which will now be renamed the Workplace Authority, and that these agreements be exposed to a ‘fairness test’ conducted by that Authority.

But I ask Government Senators, what of those workers whose agreements were lodged before 7 May 2007? They are not subject to the ‘fairness test’...

So this in fact means that more than tens of thousands of employees will be party to agreements that have not passed a ‘fairness test’. Senators will more than comprehend the implications for those employees...in reality they have nowhere to go with their concerns...

The Authority will administer the ‘fairness test’ for those workers who had their agreements lodged after 7 May 2007... by considering the financial and non-financial recompense offered relative to that which would have been payable under the applicable award... Then that agreement must provide ‘fair compensation’ for the loss of those protected conditions (which, I note, are far from broad in scope and which exclude, for example, redundancy entitlements).

This then is the question: what is ‘fair compensation’? How is it defined?

Well, non-monetary compensation will suffice whether the employee wants the non-monetary compensation or not...

The draft legislation states this at new subsection 346M(2), conferring powers on the Authority when administering the test to have regard to such non-monetary considerations as

the industry, location and economic circumstances of the employer;

the specific employment circumstances of the employee, and

relevant working arrangements and entitlements, including family

friendly conditions.

The determination of the value of such non-monetary compensation could be very subjective indeed. What is the dollar value to be attached to car parking when an employee uses public transport or indeed already has car parking available to them...There is no requirement that an employee or employer be given the opportunity to give their view, or to give an opposing view, about the value of entitlements or the overall fairness of their workplace agreement...The process allows an employer to give a unilateral undertaking to make an agreement fair, without giving the employee a chance to agree or not to agree on the terms...

How exactly are the industry, location and economic circumstances of the employer weighted in this equation?

How much is the worker to bear?

Is it fair that a worker’s personal circumstances should be confided to his or her employer and then conveyed to the Workplace Authority for its consideration in applying the test?

Only a moment’s contemplation is needed for the potential for misuse of such knowledge to be realised... Such a proposal is typical of this Government’s approach.

The Workplace Authority is to determine whether or not an agreement is fair... But it is not required by these proposals to give reasons as to how it arrives at the monetary benefit provided to a worker as compensation for the loss of a protected condition or conditions...

It is not required to give reasons as to what weight a worker’s personal circumstances was given in its deliberations, or even whether such considerations were relevant.. .

It is not even required to give reasons about how a determination was arrived at....

Is this the Government’s idea of a ‘fair go’?

This is not Labor’s idea of a fair go.... The WorkChoices scheme... epitomises the arrogant disregard with which this Government perceives the men and women who keep the wheels of industry and commerce turning in this country—and their families...

The arrogant disregard with which this Government views vulnerable employees... including those just starting out in their working lives, single parents, the unskilled and those workers from non-English speaking backgrounds – and their families, too.

WorkChoices represents the worst excesses of implementing this Government’s ideological agenda at any expense... its deep cynicism...and its preparedness to play fast and loose with the livelihoods of Australian workers.

The Government’s ‘fairness test’, drafted at speed and... as has become the usual in this place... allowed little time for scrutiny or debate... is as devoid of real integrity as those who have proposed it.

Yet, despite the Government’s motivation for the establishment of this so called ‘fairness test’, a motivation all too clearly discerned through the usual smoke and mirrors... Labor will support this bill...

Why?

Labor will support this bill - despite its flaws and inconsistencies, despite the fact that the goal posts have yet again been moved to the confusion of all Involved...despite the fact that it’s projected that an additional $370 million over the forward estimates will be required to implement the proposed changes - because it is committed to a fair go for Australian workers and their families ... and while this does not provide the fair go that is Labors vision for Australian workers and their families...Labor will not stand in the way ...

If it assists just a handful of workers ...and does no harm to others... if it provides the slightest improvement for some employees ... we will not stand in the way of the passage of this bill .. .

Labor doesn’t just wait for an election year to address the issue of fairness in the workplace...

“Labor believes in fairness at work, each and every day...this is why under a Labor Government... the Governments unfair WorkChoices would go...and be replaced with laws that have fairness at the heart of them.. for Australian workers and their families...

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

After 18 months of asserting its WorkChoices regime is not a threat to workers’ pay and conditions, the Government has finally conceded the point we all recognised when the legislation was rammed through this place: that WorkChoices and the ideology behind it is fundamentally unfair.

With the introduction of the Workplace Relations Amendment (A Stronger Safety Net) Bill 2007, we see the first major crack in the WorkChoices framework.

The Government, in conceding its extreme workplace laws are unfairly reducing the wages and employment conditions of thousands of Australian families, is also finally coming to understand how despised WorkChoices is.

In the same Orwellian fashion in which the original legislation was named, WorkChoices has now disappeared from the official Government lexicon. Ministers and entire bureaucracies are now discouraged from using the term WorkChoices, and backbenchers are loathe to utter the word for fear it will alter their electoral fortunes.

This all points to what we have long known to be true: average working Australians find impalpable the notions that their take-home pay can be cut down; that they can be dismissed for practically any reason without any recourse; and that the balance between work and family life is harder than ever to achieve.

Even if the Government does not want to mention WorkChoices, it is our duty on this side to remind them of their betrayal of working families.

I have had significant numbers of people come to my office regarding the

ways in which WorkChoices has hobbled their earning power. These are ordinary people from working families, predominantly on the Central Coast and in western Sydney, who want nothing more than to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Yet, they have been the targets of an ideological crusade. I have heard from men and women who have been sacked inexplicably; who have worked for companies run down to less than 15 employees so they receive no redundancy payments; who have signed AWAs because, in reality, that is the only choice they had.

The economic statistics and the economic reality, particularly in some of my duty electorates, are disparate concepts.

The official figures show we are enjoying record-low unemployment. But the reality is that there are literally millions of Australians who are only working a small number of hours a week and struggling to get by, but they are counted among the employed. They want more work but either cannot find it or are coming up against barriers to further employment. These include fewer training opportunities because of the Government’s chronic disinvestment in this country’s education sector, or particularly in the case of women, the high and often prohibitive costs of childcare, where working mothers would have to pay more out of their pocket for childcare than they could earn in a day.

Thrown into the mix is an industrial relations framework that is prejudiced against those with the least amount of bargaining power. They are typically those employed in retail and hospitality, and again, women make up a large number of both of these sectors. There are also large numbers of these workers in my duty electorates, in some areas making up a quarter of the workforce.

This Bill seeks to remedy the inherent unfairness of the WorkChoices legislation, and Labor will support the Bill because we welcome any relief for working families in the interim, but I and my colleagues, like many other fellow Australians, maintain the only way to ensure a consistent fair go in the workplace is to get rid of this Government and its extreme IR laws with it.

I would like to highlight, in particular, the Catholic position on WorkChoices. Of course, I recognise that the policies of the Government are not dictated by any particular religious philosophy, but it is important to note it has been falsely stated by the Prime Minister that there is no Catholic position on industrial relations. I think it is clear that the tradition of Catholic social justice speaks out against the ideology underpinning the Coalition’s workplace regime.

The Catholic Church’s thinking on industrial relations is pointedly referred to in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical, Rerum Novarum, in which it is written:

Now, for the provision of such commodities, the labor of the working class- the exercise of their skill, and the employment of their strength, in the cultivation of the land, and in the workshops of trade- is especially responsible and quite indispensable. Indeed, their co-operation is in this respect so important that it may be truly said that it is only by the labor of working men that States grow rich. Justice, therefore, demands that the interests of the working classes should be carefully watched over by the administration, so that they who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may themselves share in the benefits which they create- that being housed, clothed, and bodily fit, they may find their life less hard and more endurable. It follows that whatever shall appear to prove conducive to the well-being of those who work should obtain favourable consideration. There is no fear that solicitude of this kind will be harmful to any interest; on the contrary, it will be to the advantage of all, for it cannot but be good for the commonwealth to shield from misery those on whom it so largely depends for the things that it needs.

This is the position that has remained consistent throughout the Catholic Church’s teachings, and is particularly applicable to the situation Australian workers find themselves in.

The assertion by the Prime Minister that there is no Catholic position is an attempt to avoid the criticism of his industrial relations policy by a significant member of the Australian community, one that has intimate daily contact with the most disadvantaged.

The Catholic Bishop of Parramatta, Kevin Manning, has been an outspoken critic of the unfairness of the Coalition’s IR policies. Bishop Manning’s criticism is based upon the Catholic principle that the most vulnerable members of our community are protected from conditions that would make their lives even more difficult.

This is a principle that does appear in our tradition of providing for those without employment, for those with disabilities and for those who must care for another on a full-time basis. This is also extended to the concept of universal health care.

These are all traditions that are being assailed by the Coalition. It is bringing to bear the sharper end of its ideology on the most vulnerable in our society. We on this side believe in giving people the opportunity to improve their own situations, but we do not agree with the methods used by this Government. The idea that a person can be denied access to any Commonwealth assistance for up to two months is inconsistent with the responsibility of the Government in caring for those who are least able to care for themselves.

In the same way, WorkChoices is counter to this concept. WorkChoices tips the scales too far in the favour of one group in society, at the expense of another. Working families are faced with stark choices: do they risk their jobs by protesting against an unfair workplace agreement, or do they lose their overtime and shift loadings because a poor-paying job is better than none at all?

This is the reality people are facing. With no training opportunities and expensive childcare, they are being herded away from Commonwealth assistance and towards cutthroat, American-style workplaces where the share of profits is going up but the share of wages are heading south, and where a refusal of a job could lead to them being without the means to buy food and pay for utilities for months on end.

Is this the fruit of the national prosperity we keep hearing about? Is this what we do for our countrymen and women who are being left behind?

There has been talk recently of the human dividend being derived from the wealth of the national economy. What indeed is that human dividend? The Prime Minister will point to a set of numbers to try and quantify the human dividend of the economy, insisting it is the best it will ever be, but anyone

who has their ear a bit closer to the ground will know there are rumblings of dissatisfaction among the shareholders. Australians are putting in- their hard work, their knowledge, and their passion- but are they receiving back in kind all they should be?

In particular, when we see the share of profits of companies and the tax take of the Commonwealth increasing at the same time as the share of wages decreasing, what does that say about the distribution of the human dividend in the era of WorkChoices?

Bishop Manning told the Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes of NSW on 16 April this year:

I suggest that you attend to the number of times the vocabulary of economic prosperity is used by the supporters of WorkChoices without reference to the human dimension of economic growth.

Authentic human development can never be equated with economic growth alone.

When the economy takes precedence over the authentic development of the human community certain concepts gain an unwarranted pre-eminence.

Those concepts include a free market at the expense of all considerations of the human condition, and profit as the key characteristic of the health of an economy.

These are the concepts that drive WorkChoices. These are the ideological underpinnings that the Prime Minister has set for his workplace laws. Despite the cracks opening up in the system with the introduction of this Bill, there is nothing that genuinely provides for the concept of fairness in the workplace or of a sincere attempt to protect the most vulnerable.

Debate interrupted.