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

I table a document on agreement making in Australia under the Workplace Relations Act for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Given the controversial nature of the introduction of the Work Choices legislation, this report has been long awaited. In the development of this report there has been some discussion in the Senate estimates process. I have had a chance to study this report, because it has already been tabled in the House of Representatives, and it is as disappointing as I expected it to be. It is a very bland report and does not really give any support to the government’s position that the unfair agreement-making process under Work Choices has supported any of the outcomes that the government claims.

I am not surprised that the report does not assist the government in any of those cases, because, during Senate estimates, we asked how the department was going to use the data it was collecting from AWAs and other forms of agreement making to prepare this report. Most of this information is gathered from the workplace agreements database, although it does rely on some general information from the ABS and some other departmental sources. The information detailed in the report is from the workplace agreements database. In answer to a question from me at Senate estimates, Mr Kovacic, from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, explained what the workplace relations database was and what it could be used for. He said:

We have replicated a database in respect of AWAs to coincide with the introduction of Work Choices. It is not an analytical tool, in the sense that it does not enable us to analyse, I suppose, the results of bargaining. It really is a tool to assist us in the preparation of the report on agreement making.

Of course, no analysis took place. Further, at the same estimates hearing on 15 February this year, Mr Kovacic said:

The workplace agreements database does not enable us to undertake any analysis of protected award conditions along the lines that I think were referred to by Peter McIlwain at the May estimates of last year.

The estimates hearing of May 2006 was the only time we were actually able to get an analysis of agreement making. That was when Mr McIlwain, the then Employment Advocate, admitted, after an analysis of a sample of AWAs, that 100 per cent of AWAs at that time removed at least one protected award condition; 16 per cent of AWAs removed all protected award conditions; 64 per cent of AWAs removed annual leave loading; 63 per cent of AWAs removed all penalty rates; 52 per cent of AWAs removed loadings for shift work; only 59 per cent of AWAs retained declared public holidays; 22 per cent of AWAs did not provide for any wage increase for the life of the agreement; and 14 per cent of AWAs applying to casual workers provided for a loading of less than the legal minimum—that is, less than 20 per cent.

No analysis has since been done by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or by the Office of the Employment Advocate—as I understand it, the only two government bodies that have access to forms of agreement making and AWAs. Mr McIlwain, the then Employment Advocate, told the Senate estimates hearing that he was not collecting any data on AWAs after that time—and conveniently the government department decided they would no longer provide any data or any analysis of it. Only later did we find out that Mr McIlwain was lying through his teeth at the Senate estimates hearing about the ongoing collection of data, because it was soon leaked to the media. We got an update of the analysis that was in fact being done by the OEA—even though Mr McIlwain denied that to the Senate estimates process, which was a grave disappointment.

Mr McIlwain is no longer the Employment Advocate; he is the Deputy Employment Advocate. He missed out on the new job. We have all seen Ms Barbara Bennett, the new Employment Advocate. The role has a new name and has been rebadged as part of the government’s attempt to disassociate itself from Work Choices.

This report is probably more significant for what it does not tell us than for what it does tell us because, in the words of the department, it does not provide a basis for any real analysis of what is happening with AWAs. There are other researchers analysing the impact of AWAs on working people, working conditions and wages. A recent report, From awards to work choices in retail and hospitality collective agreements, from a team of over 20 researchers, examined every collective agreement lodged federally between 26 March and 8 December 2006 in two industries where large numbers of workers were previously dependent on awards. Those industries were the retail and hospitality industries, covering enterprises in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. All those AWAs were provided by the government to this research team. They found that the majority of agreements have discarded entitlements or reduced them under Work Choices. Their findings on protected award conditions showed that: 80 per cent of agreements removed annual leave loadings; 79 per cent of agreements removed laundry allowances; 76 per cent of agreements removed Saturday penalty rates; 71 per cent of agreements removed Sunday penalty rates; 68 per cent of agreements removed overtime rates; 60 per cent of agreements removed public holiday penalty rates; and 55 per cent of agreements removed all paid breaks.

Some of the provisions removed and reduced in AWAs were not protected award conditions but were very important to people, particularly in these specific industries. Seventy-four per cent of agreements removed casual loading; 65 per cent of agreements removed severance pay; 63 per cent of agreements removed rostered days off; 62 per cent of agreements put limits on part-time hours; 62 per cent of agreements removed the right to average hours over a one- to four-week period; 56 per cent of agreements only provided for minimum part-time daily hours; and 54 per cent of agreements removed time off between overtime and the next working day.

In the retail industry, this study found that on average the wages lost in these AWAs were between two per cent and 18 per cent, and the potential average gains were never more than 0.5 per cent. Casual part-time sales assistants working a 12-hour week in retail lost on average 12 per cent of their earnings. Permanent part-time workers on the same hours lost 18 per cent. In hospitality, the losses were between six per cent and 12 per cent. The only gains were in union agreements and, at most, these were just over three per cent. Permanent part-time waiting and bar staff in the hospitality industry working a 21-hour week of split shifts lost 12 per cent on average under these AWAs. These averages conceal some of the very significant falls in earnings. The worst of those, with losses greater than 10 per cent, included the following. In liquor stores, workers on AWAs suffered losses of between 11.9 per cent and 31.1 per cent. In the fast food industry, workers on AWAs suffered losses of between 12.5 per cent and 21.3 per cent. In bakeries, workers on AWAs suffered losses of between 17.9 per cent and 24.5 per cent. In restaurants, workers on AWAs suffered losses of between 10 per cent and 12.8 per cent. In cafes, workers on AWAs suffered losses of between 10 per cent and 15.7 per cent.

It is no wonder that the government report does not analyse the impact of AWAs on Australian workers, because every study that it has commissioned anywhere in this country that has looked at the conditions of AWAs and made any analysis only shows that workers are having their wages and conditions completely gouged under the unfair and extreme industrial relations system of Work Choices that this government has introduced. We hear the government, time after time, trying to discredit the authors of these reports, but never do you hear the government going into the methodology or challenging the results of the reports. They simply want to discredit people who have worked on reports previously, because of the fact that different governments may have commissioned these reports. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall has said it all: the reports with the sorts of details he is giving do come at times from what I would call questionable sources. It is quite clear to me from hearing Senator Marshall that the unions have been working flat out to try to discredit what is clearly a work system that is embraced by most Australians. The flexibility that the Work Choices legislation gives to Australians is well appreciated and the benefit of it is demonstrated by the fact that, since Work Choices commenced, unemployment has been at the lowest it has been in the memory of any of us in this chamber. Unemployment is so low because of (a) this government’s good economic management and (b) the flexibility of Work Choices.

I know the unions have contributed upwards of $30 million to the Labor Party to run what I consider to be a very dishonest television campaign on the Work Choices legislation, but I think the facts of this Work Choices legislation are becoming increasingly known to the Australian public. We have put in place a lot of safeguards. In question time today, Senator Abetz indicated prosecutions that have been brought against employers who have breached the very stringent rules contained in the Work Choices legislation.

I understand that this is the last-gasp for the unions and the Labor Party. If the Labor Party do not win this election, the unions will be finished in Australia. Why will they be finished? Because they are not needed anymore. People these days—young people in particular—have the confidence to deal with their employers and get a good deal. What the Labor Party and the unions continue to overlook is that employees are more important to employers than employers are to employees. Employers cannot run their businesses without a competent, skilled, satisfied and happy workforce. That is why the Work Choices legislation has given the sort of flexibility that most Australian working people now enjoy.

As I said, it is a last-gasp issue for the Labor Party. If the Labor Party get in, they will do what they did when they were last in power: they kept throwing money at the unions and putting them on all the dodgy boards. How many boards were there; how many committees; how many focus groups? I know that Mr Rudd is very influenced by focus groups. The Labor Party are promising so many new committees, so many new organisations—you will be able to fill them all with your union mates, give them some money and—

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that way you will find, I guess, as Senator Bernardi cleverly says, future Senate candidates. I think we pointed out before that, of the 20 Labor Party Senate candidates coming up for election this time, 15 are from the unions and four worked for the Australian Labor Party in the—

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

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, staff of Labor senators. You are quite right. I know that Senator Conroy comes from a real job: he used to be a truck driver or used to work for the truckies’ union. Perhaps there is a bit of a difference in that. Back in the Keating years, the Labor Party used to give the unions big licks of money to set up a library or something like that. Of course, the union would then shuffle the money through and donate it back to the Labor Party for campaign funds. That is why the unions and the Labor Party do so well when there are Labor governments.

When you have wall-to-wall Labor governments—every state government, every territory government and should the federal government become a Labor government—can you just imagine? The unions will run riot. In this chamber they are all representatives of the union. Right around the states, you see the unions having such a strong influence on what state Labor governments do. Senator Bernardi, did you want to speak?

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

No.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone else is too embarrassed.

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

I’ve got plenty to add, Stephen.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just checking. I do not want to deny my colleagues the opportunity of giving the lie to the sort of misinformation that Senator Marshall gave to the Senate in the previous speech. It is very important that the Australian people make the distinction between the union propaganda that Senator Marshall has just contributed to the Senate and the real facts. The real facts are: Work Choices works; Work Choices gives flexibility; it gives us the lowest unemployment in the memory of anyone in this particular chamber.

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

There are 400,000 good reasons.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 400,000 good reasons—thank you, Senator Ronaldson—why this legislation is good. I come from North and Central Queensland, in the Bowen Basin. You guys should go to some of those places; you should go to the mines and talk to the miners—get out of the cities and talk to the miners. I will give you a map and show you where they are. You should talk to the miners, because they love Work Choices. They hated being on an award that gave them $60,000 a year. They are now dragging in $150,000 or $200,000 a year. They love Work Choices because they have the flexibility to negotiate with their employer to get a good deal for themselves. That contributes to a very strong economy and makes everyone’s lifestyle, our way of living, so much better. It is important that we understand the facts of the Work Choices legislation and not fall for the sort of misinformation that the unions give us through the mouths of Labor senators opposite. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.