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

The government is always trying to tell us how much better off workers are under Work Choices, but information coming straight from workplaces across the country is telling a very different story. We find example after example of pay being cut and conditions eroded, of unfair dismissals without antidote, of fear and intimidation pervading the mood in factories, offices, shops, hospitality establishments and care facilities. The men and women at the centre of these anecdotes are the human faces of these extreme industrial relations laws. They are the faces, the people the Howard government does not want us to meet.

Now we find in a study initially commissioned by the government’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and followed through by the National Foundation for Australian Women, the Women’s Electoral Lobby Australia, the Young Women’s Christian Association Australia, and the states, that women in particular are hurting under the crushing weight of these laws. It is no surprise that women—already often disadvantaged and discriminated against at work in terms of pay and conditions—are even worse off with Work Choices.

Work Choices is a misnomer. Choice is exactly what workers under this legislation do not have. Many have had no choice but to accept moving from full-time to part-time employment, or part-time to full-time employment, whether they liked it or not. There were no options. There was no choice but to give up public holiday loading, penalty rates, sick leave or redundancy remuneration; no choice but to sign a workplace agreement that cut their rates of pay or their hours of work; no choice but to swallow being sacked without fair cause. The Women and WorkChoices: impacts on the low pay sector report conducted by 12 leading academics categorically concludes that women are getting a rough deal under the federal government’s IR laws. It says that legislative change is needed if we are to work towards a more level playing field.

The report records interviews with more than 120 low-paid women from across Australia in industries such as aged and child care, hospitality, clerical, cleaning and retail, the sectors shown by prior research to be most at risk of poor wages and conditions. Many have lost $100 a week in earnings since the introduction of Work Choices. In its executive summary background the report authors say:

A number of studies now suggest that WorkChoices is having a range of negative effects on the pay and conditions of Australian workers. Women and vulnerable workers have been especially affected. For example, in 2006 median earnings for female non-managerial employees on AWAs were 18.7 per cent less than those of women on collective agreements. A pattern of worse outcomes for those on Australian Workplace Agreements in smaller companies is especially pronounced for women. Women in lesser skilled jobs ... are particularly disadvantaged.

In 2006 those on AWAs were paid 26 per cent less than similar women on collective agreements and 20 per cent less than the average of women on award pay.

But statistics paint only part of the picture. The people whose lives and loved ones are scarred by a loss of livelihood, thanks to these laws, make heartrending reading. There are shocking stories from all regions of Australia but those from my home state of South Australia strike a particularly resonant chord. The report gives these people, who have been bullied, harassed, cheated and exploited, a voice, a chance to be respectfully heard.

Michelle, 58, was a sewing instructor for a small, profitable retail outlet for almost seven years on conditions matching an award. When she refused to change her employment arrangement to an employer-imposed self-employed contract, which made work costs her responsibility, gave no income security and reduced her conditions for doing the same work, she was dismissed. She no longer has a remedy for dismissal. The proposed contract or dismissal enabled her employer to avoid long service leave obligations.

A sole parent of two primary school-aged children, Shannon, was a 43-year-old hospitality worker at an establishment employing fewer than 101 people, when she was sacked over the phone. What did she do? She refused to start a shift just three and-a-half hours after a 13-hour, overnight shift on the job. Shannon, who had shifted her country location to get the work, had no remedy for unfair dismissal.

Following a change of franchise at a workplace of fewer than 101 staff and the introduction of Work Choices, 24-year-old pharmacy assistant Frances had her pay rate cut without any consultation. She tried to negotiate a better deal but was told that if she did not like it she could leave. She was afraid of being dismissed. Frances found she really had no choice. Lilly, a sales manager was treated less favourably on return from maternity leave and was eventually made redundant. She was informed that due to Work Choices she was only entitled to two rather than six weeks redundancy pay.

The experiences of Michelle, Shannon, Lilly and Frances and the other 117 people interviewed for this report are far too familiar and I have many more examples recorded in my office back in Adelaide. I will conclude with sobering words from Labor’s industrial relations spokesperson, Julia Gillard. She said:

From leaked information earlier, we know that of the Australians who have signed Australian Workplace Agreements, 44 per cent of them lost all of the conditions Mr Howard told them would be protected by law. Overtime gone, penalty rates gone, public holiday pay gone. The Government has never opened up the files so that there can be a systematic study and there’s a reason for that—they don’t want Australians to know the truth because of how grim the truth is.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has refused to release data on his Australian workplace agreements, leaving qualitative studies as the only option for academics and researchers. The government has refused to listen to low-paid working women who are suffering under their extreme and unfair workplace laws.