Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Fair Work Bill 2008. It is important at the outset to unambiguously outline the coalition’s stand on this legislation. The yardstick by which we measure this legislation will be its impact on jobs and the capacity of the Australian economy to create jobs. Dovetailed in with that will be the issue of its impact on small business, which is clearly the engine room of job creation within our country.

The debate today is no longer about Work Choices. Work Choices is dead. That was the first announcement made by the coalition after the last election, and it remains our position. The Australian people did not need the coalition to tell them that Work Choices was dead. It was in fact the Australian people who told the coalition that Work Choices was dead, and we accept that verdict. We also accept that Labor was elected on a policy platform that is largely being implemented in this bill. We went to the last election with a policy designed to enhance the employment opportunities of our fellow Australians. It was in that regard well motivated and it delivered the job outcomes promised, but it gained those outcomes at a cost to working conditions which was largely unacceptable to the Australian people. The removal of the no disadvantage test and the unfair dismissal changes, with employers with up to 100 employees being counted into that part of the legislation, amongst others, were part of the community concern and delivered the community rejection.

The bill with which we are confronted today is the policy which is now under consideration and scrutiny. It will not do for those opposite to try to wind back the clock and talk about the policy position that we took to the last election, because that is no longer our position. What is under scrutiny today in the Senate is the government’s policy, the government’s legislation and the government’s policy impact on jobs and job creation.

We believe that Labor’s legislation will cost jobs. It will increase union power at the expense of workers’ rights to privacy. It will wind back the reform clock of over two decades. This is one of the great ironies in this debate today: it will wind back the clock on some of the reforms introduced by a former President of the ACTU, Mr Hawke, when he was Prime Minister. And who is winding back the clock on those Labor reforms introduced by a former ACTU president but the Labor Prime Minister who sold himself to the electorate at the last election as an economic conservative. This is where we have a huge insight into what Mr Rudd and his government are all about: it is all about the spin not about the substance. As Mr Garrett so famously said, ‘Don’t listen to what we say; look at what we do when we get into government.’ So here we have somebody who adopted neoliberal economic conservative credentials before the election, winding back IR reforms introduced by a former ACTU President, Mr Hawke.

In fairness, the legislation will do some good things. I and the coalition believe that the legislation is well drafted, well set out and easy to read, and I would say to those who seek to draft other Commonwealth legislation that they should have a look at this legislation, not necessarily for all its content but in relation to the way that it is drafted. My congratulations go to those who were involved in its drafting. It is also interesting to note that Labor, after having initially promised to rip up Work Choices, lock, stock and barrel, is in fact adopting many aspects of it, as was highlighted by union submission after union submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation. The constitutional lock, of course, is exactly the same as the coalition’s—that is, the use of the corporations power. Remember the High Court challenge? All those poor, long-suffering state Labor government taxpayers had to fund the High Court challenge because it was so outrageous and so immoral to use the corporations power for that purpose. The Labor Party is now converted and has fully adopted our approach.

Remember Labor’s opposition to our unfair dismissal laws, even when the figure was set at businesses with only 15 or 20 employees? Today in their legislation they are commending to this place a figure and regime very similar to ours, albeit with some barbs in it for small business that will go through undoubtedly at the committee stage of the legislation. But it is interesting that Labor have now come to the party and recognised that their unfair dismissal experiment was a failure and needed to be amended. Here they are with a regime where they say 15 employees would be an appropriate benchmark. The reason they came up with these sorts of policy lines in relation to adopting some of our unfair dismissal laws—condemning the possibility of compulsory arbitration, amongst other things—was to be able to sell their neoliberal economic conservative credentials before the last election. That is the truth of it. They knew they could not rip it all up lock, stock and barrel, as they had promised, and of course have now kept many things. But as always with Labor, as Mr Garrett so rightly said, ‘Don’t look at what we say; look at what we do.’

In the lead-up to the election Labor made some very strong promises in two areas that I will particularly canvass in this contribution to the second reading debate. They made these promises so that they would look as though they were economic conservatives and responsible. But they have now broken those election promises and they have done so in a very stark manner. Allow me first of all to deal with the right of entry rules that are now in this legislation. Indeed, Ms Gillard on many occasions, including to a press conference on 28 August 2007, before the last election, said:

We will make sure that the current right of entry provisions stay.

She also said subsequently:

We will keep the right of entry provisions.

And:

We promised to retain the current right of entry framework and this promise too will be kept.

It could not be clearer. Yet the legislation clearly does not keep the regime that we have in place. It is a complete and utter repudiation of it for one reason only—that is, as a payoff to the trade union movement. Make no mistake, as late as 28 May, speaking to the Master Builders Association, when Ms Gillard was the minister, she said:

We promised to retain the current right of entry framework and this promise, too, will be kept.

So between 28 May 2008 and now something has changed. Of course, it is the strong arm of the trade union movement saying to Ms Gillard and the Labor Party: ‘We spent $100 million on your election campaign’—the biggest amount of money spent by any third party in Australian politics, in Australian history; more, I suggest, than the Liberal and Labor parties put together; it was a massive campaign—‘and we have to reboost our coffers. We’ve got to get our money back.’ The way to do it, of course, is to enhance the right of entry rules. So what we have now in this legislation is the capacity of the trade union official to storm into a place and say, ‘I want to have a look at the books and work records of all your employees, even those that have decided not to be a member of the trade union.’ That is wrong in principle. We make no apologies for saying as a coalition and an opposition that we stand up for workers’ rights—the right of workers not to have their privacy corrupted by the trade union movement looking through their records when that individual worker has said, ‘I do not want my records looked at by a union official.’

Similarly, if a union has no workers on a work site and if the workers so decide, the union should not have a right of entry to that workplace. If the workers say that they do not want a union entering into their workplace then that is something that we believe should be respected. I would respectfully refer honourable senators to the Committee Hansard of 18 February 2009, at page 16. A union official acknowledged this:

There is a massive overlap in eligibility rules throughout Australia … There is a very large overlap …

…         …         …

Yes, and, one would have to say, in many cases beyond the wit and wisdom of a security guard at a gate who is being confronted with a union official with a 27-page eligibility rule and an explanation by the union official as to why it is they are entitled to be there.

Then, as this union official was pleased to tell us:

Without being too flippant about it, I have made a living out of the eligibility rules of unions for a number of years, and they can be extremely complex. You are quite right about that.

So what we are going back to is an era of unfettered entry into workplaces by trade union officials. We as a coalition say that that is wrong in principle and, what is more, if the workers decide they do not want trade union presence in their workplace, they are entitled to have that respected. Why do we say that? You see, 80 per cent of the Australian workforce in the private sector—indeed, I think I could go up to 85 per cent of workers—have said, by their choice, ‘We don’t want to be a member of a trade union.’ And they are entitled to exercise that choice in a free country such as Australia. But to then have those rights trampled upon by union officials saying: ‘Well, you might not be a member of our union, mate, but—guess what?—we are still going to look at your records that are held by your employer.’ Or they could say: ‘You might not want us to come into your workplace, but—guess what?—even if you do not want us to we are going to march on in there.’ That is unacceptable to workers’ rights. Somebody has to stand up for the 85 per cent of Australian workers that do not want to be a member of a trade union. We on this side unashamedly stand up for those 85 per cent of Australian workers who have made such a choice.

I now turn to the issue of compulsory arbitration. Ms Gillard is once again very strong on this. On 30 May 2007 Ms Gillard, in a speech to the National Press Club in which she once again stressed her neoliberal economic conservative credentials, said:

Our policy clearly states that no one will be forced to sign up to an agreement where they do not agree to the terms.

She went on to say:

… in the ordinary course … all of that bargaining will happen at the enterprise level, they will either strike an agreement or not strike an agreement.

Then, even after she became minister, on 17 September 2008—only some five months or so ago—she said:

Compulsory arbitration will not be a feature of good faith bargaining.

Guess what? It is today in this legislation in direct breach of very straightforward election promises to the Australian people, and they are promises that were reiterated after the election. So you have to ask the question: why is it that the Labor Party, having made a solemn election promise and recommitted to it after the election, then decided to do a big backflip? The reason is trade union muscle, trade union influence and trade union demands, because they want to muscle in on the bargaining process and if they cannot get an agreement they want to force one out of the employer through Fair Work Australia.

Time is running short so let me say that it is understood by the coalition that Labor is introducing a number of amendments to its own legislation. We will look forward to those and will deal with them on their merits, but I indicate that we as a coalition do have concerns in relation to the regime, in relation to greenfields agreements and, once again, in relation to the enhanced union power that is being suggested there. We are also concerned about how the unfair dismissal laws might apply. We will of course have a look at the amendments that the government proposes and deal with them on their merits.

In coming to this debate, let me say that Work Choices is dead and there is no need to revisit that. What we need to visit is the regime that is being proposed today. That regime must be tested on a number of criteria. The first one is its impact on jobs and job creation. Clearly, what we need to do, with a good safety net—and this legislation provides a substantial safety net—is ensure that everything is done to enhance employment opportunities in this country. We believe that there are aspects of this legislation that run counter to that ambition, especially in the current environment where so many jobs are currently being lost through a number of factors, including the uncertainty that this legislation provides to employers. Many employers are telling me and my coalition colleagues that they are getting in first because of the anti-employment regime in this legislation; they are starting to shed jobs now so that they will not be caught up in the regime that is being introduced today. So, as with the credit crisis, which Labor made worse with its bungled bank guarantee, we now have the job losses being experienced in Australia today being made worse by another Rudd bungle in this legislation.

Unlike Labor we do accept that Labor have a mandate in relation to a number of the matters that they raised before the election. I remind Labor that our good grace in relation to that was never shown by the them when we won on unfair dismissal laws in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004. Did the Labor Party say, ‘The Australian people have spoken’? No, because they were always beholden to the trade union movement and they could not care less about electoral mandates. When it came to the GST, on which we got a mandate, they sought to block us every step of the way. We are not an irresponsible opposition. We are an opposition that accepts the verdict of the Australian people, but we also accept that we have a role to keep the government honest in relation to this and other legislation. And, where their legislation is a clear and complete repudiation of that which they took to the Australian people, we will seek to hold the government to account. I remind those opposite—all those former trade union officials who will be getting up to speak—that this debate is no longer about Work Choices. It is about the regime that Labor want to put in place and the impact that will have on jobs in the engine room of job creation in this country, which of course is small business. I look forward to the committee stage.

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

The Greens believe that the workplace has a central part to play in most people’s lives. We spend a large proportion of our time at work, and work is important for our social and economic wellbeing. The regulation of the workplace and the relationship between employers and employees affects the lives of millions of Australians. It has a central role in shaping the type of society we live in and it reflects the values we hold. The Fair Work Bill 2008 is therefore an extremely significant piece of legislation.

Fundamental changes to our industrial relations laws have a long-lasting impact on not just our workplaces but our broader community. It is therefore important that we get this bill right. What we must never forget is that employment law is not just about the economy or productivity; it has an absolutely essential social value. Labour is not merely a commodity. Workers must be treated with respect and dignity, and the framework of our laws is a significant factor in ensuring such respect. The debate about this bill should not just be about its immediate impacts, whether it will harm productivity or encourage employment, but also about the long-term consequences of consolidating fundamental change in our industrial relations system and its effects on our community.

The Greens are informed by the following values when considering workplace laws: that we can create a sustainable future with fair workplaces and sustainable communities, protect our environment and ensure a healthy economy; that all people have a right to pursue their wellbeing in conditions of freedom and dignity, economic security and equal opportunity; that working people have the right to be involved in decisions about their work; and that free, independent and democratic unions are an essential pillar of a civil society.

In evaluating this bill the Greens have not limited ourselves to comparing the bill to Work Choices or to comparing it to what the government has said previously. We believe the bill needs to be independently assessed on its own merits and not justified merely by the fact that it may be better than Work Choices and the experiences we have had over the last few years. We believe the overall question is whether we will have a better, fairer industrial relations system, not merely how it can be graded against Work Choices.

The economic arguments for and against this bill will, I am sure, be debated at length in this chamber. The Greens do not believe the bill will have a significant impact either way on productivity or employment, certainly not compared with impact of the worldwide economic circumstances we are now facing or the looming environmental crisis. In fact, we strenuously reject arguments that workplace rights—treating workers with dignity—are a luxury only to be enjoyed in the good times. We note that the same organisations that are arguing against the expanded employee rights in this bill, on the basis we are facing difficult economic times, are the same groups that supported the extreme ‘flexibility’ of Work Choices in the good economic times. It seems that for some employers, and unfortunately for some in the coalition, there is never a good time to accord workers decent labour standards.

As a global community we are facing serious challenges—the current economic crisis and a severe environmental crisis. Either we can start transforming our society and our economy now to meet these challenges or change will happen later, with more pain and trauma. The current economic and environmental crises, which are in many ways interlinked, provide us with the perfect opportunity to act, to approach the development of such vital laws with new thinking, free from the political compromises of the past few years. We cannot afford the same thinking that got us into our current situation, the naive belief in deregulation, in maximum ‘flexibility’ for business and that the profit motive will provide for all. We need new thinking about how we can refashion our society and its key institutional structures—economically, socially and environmentally—to move us to a low-carbon economy where we meet the environmental, economic and social challenges and create a sustainable future.

A transformed economy includes doing business differently. It includes respecting workers, workplace democracy and dignity at work. Some may say these are old-fashioned values, but we think they are values that must endure. It is misguided to assume that fair wages and conditions and fair dispute resolution can be left to the market. There are some workers for whom the market will provide but there are many others whom the market will fail, which is why we need to provide a robust set of protections in this new industrial relation system. We saw the evidence of this with Work Choices and the loss of important workplace conditions and less take-home pay for many workers.

A measure of what is wrong with where we are at present is indicated by comparing the profits-to-wages share of our national income. The profit share is at record high levels and trending upwards, while the wages share is at the lowest levels since the mid-sixties and trending downwards. These trends, coupled with the justified community outrage at excessive CEO pay, tell us something about where we are at as a society and what we value. As a community we are now facing the consequences of an overly individualised society. In the past we have put community values on the backburner. It is way past that time. Now is the time for change. We need to refocus on the common good and on what we can achieve together. The Greens are not convinced that the Fair Work Bill provides the necessary framework for us to meet the challenges we as a community face in the coming years. It is for these reasons we view the Fair Work Bill as a missed opportunity for the ALP government.

The bill has some positive aspects, in particular the provisions supporting collective bargaining—including the good-faith bargaining provisions and the low-paid bargaining stream—as well as the expanded general protections and transfer of business provisions. Overall, the bill is an improvement on Work Choices. Quite frankly, how could it not be? The evidence on Work Choices is clear: it ripped away workers’ rights, was used by employers to exploit workers by removing pay and conditions and was explicitly anti-union and anti collective action.

Unfortunately, however—and this is why it is so essential that we do keep going back to Work Choices—the bill also keeps many elements of Work Choices. It builds on the Work Choices architecture, with the use of the corporations power, retains the current severe restrictions on taking industrial action, provides for a downgraded awards system, incorporates the idea that some workers should have more rights than others and cannot quite shake off individual agreements. What the bill does not do is address some of the most pressing issues facing Australian workers. Unreasonable working hours remains a significant issue for many workers, whether it is working some of the longest hours in the OECD, working unsocial hours or not working enough. The Fair Work Bill provides no new thinking on addressing these very important issues. It takes its working hours provisions substantially from Work Choices and provides for individual agreements which will have the same potential as AWAs to undermine people’s conditions, including penalty rates for unsocial working hours.

The Fair Work Bill adds very little to the ongoing concerns about the work-life balance. It introduces a right to request flexible working arrangements but gives the provisions no force. These matters of working hours and the work-life balance remain important in the context of this bill and must not be forgotten in the midst of fears of job losses. In fact, some of the innovative means of addressing these issues could be taken on board in addressing the downturn in the economy by keeping people in and attached to the workforce for when our economy recovers.

Another perennial issue is pay equity. We still have a situation in this country where women are paid less than men for doing work of equal or comparable value. The pay gap nationally remains at around 16 per cent, while in my home state of WA it is up to around 28 per cent—and getting worse. Such disparities are unacceptable. We will wait to see how the new pay equity provisions in the bill operate in practice. But more attention has to be paid to pay equity in the award review process and the minimum wage setting. We do not want all the hard work that went into the pay equity reviews in the states going to waste. These are all primary concerns in the workplace. They are about ensuring that work is not just an economic activity but provides quality of life

The major flaw with the bill is the lack of independent dispute resolution processes that can result in the determination of a dispute. While it is a positive that the ALP has introduced last resort arbitration into the collective bargaining provisions and also, importantly, into the low-paid bargaining stream, there remains no means of effectively resolving workplace disputes unrelated to bargaining. In particular, disputes about the application of the National Employment Standards, award or agreement provisions are unable to be finally determined by an independent arbitrator unless there is consent by both parties.

The Greens support the call made by many submissions to the Senate inquiry for the bill to provide Fair Work Australia with a more general power to resolve workplace disputes. We also note that many of the strongest calls for Fair Work Australia to retain a broad arbitration power have come from representatives of workers from low-paid industries, often women, who have historically been less able to exert industrial muscle to achieve fair outcomes. Ms Julie Bignell, from the Queensland Australian Services Union, eloquently argued for the retention of independent dispute resolution and summed up the fundamental shift this bill represents. She said:

Arbitration is in our view the epitome of the Australian value that we all aspire to, and that is a fair go. It is a feature of our country for a hundred years and it was a unique feature that was very much the envy of other countries because it preserved employment relationships, not destroyed them. The current bill’s provisions do not create an environment where differences can be settled and the parties get back to work quickly. Instead, they create a legalistic framework where workers will have to pay lawyers to represent them in court, probably many months after the dispute arose, and the focus of the litigation will not be on preserving the employment relationship but will be on assigning blame and ordering penalties against one of the parties. We say this is not in the spirit of a fair go and we say that justice needs to be accessible to everyone and in order to work, not just those who can afford a lawyer.

The shift from a framework focused on resolving disputes to a complex and complicated series of laws to be enforced will have long-lasting consequences for our society. It further tilts the balance towards employers, particularly in difficult economic times.

The fundamental imbalance in the workplace was acknowledged by our forebears in our Constitution. In recent years, the dominant ideology has focused on the individual and tried to deny or ignore the inequities that resulted. While the bill provides for strengthened collective bargaining rights, the need to address the power imbalance between employees and employers infuses all aspects of the workplace. And this is where the Fair Work Bill fails—as did Work Choices. If a worker or a group of workers has a dispute in the workplace, whether it is about changes to rosters, working hours or the general treatment of workers—anything unrelated to bargaining or the actual enforcement of a right—the resolution of the dispute will favour the strongest party. The strongest party is likely to be the employer. This is particularly the case given industrial action outside of bargaining is also unlawful under this bill. Workers are therefore left disempowered in the workplace.

If we are turning our back on our history with a rejection of arbitration, we need then to recognise in our law the fundamental right of workers to withdraw their labour. Such a right is intrinsically linked to the freedoms of association and expression and the right to peaceful assembly. The Greens do not shy away from our support for the right of workers to withdraw their labour in pursuit of their economic or social interests. Any sense of fairness in the Fair Work Bill is undermined by the denial of a fair and final dispute resolution process coupled with the denial of the right to take industrial action. The Greens believe that this should be included in our industrial relations system.

Apart from the philosophical differences we have with both major parties about the regulation of workplaces, we have a number of more specific concerns with the provisions of the bill. Our key concerns include the fact that individual flexibility arrangements have the potential to operate like AWAs in reducing people’s take-home pay and conditions. At this stage, we appreciate why the government chose to not register these individual agreements—that is, they do not want them to be statutory. In fact, the government have come up with a halfway house under pressure—particularly from the mining sector in my home state of Western Australia—to maintain individual flexible arrangements. They came up with those as a halfway house instead of having individual contracts. Now we have an instrument that nobody is going to be able to check or review. We simply will not know if it is undermining people’s rights and conditions.

We are concerned that the bill maintains restrictions on the content that can be agreed to in enterprise agreements. We believe that employers and employees should be able to agree on whatever they want to in those particular contracts. We believe that that is in fact in line with ILO conventions. We are concerned—and we have repeatedly put this concern on the record—that the unfair dismissal laws do not provide the necessary protections for all workers. We are extremely concerned about the fact that workers in small businesses will have different rights from those in larger businesses. We are concerned that the award modernisation process is resulting in workers losing important conditions.

We articulated this when we discussed the previous transition bill that established the award modernisation process. We are deeply concerned that the issues that we raised at that time are now, unfortunately, becoming reality—it is finally dawning on people that conditions are being lost through this award modernisation process. We believe that the process needs to be reviewed much sooner than after four years, as proposed by the government. We are concerned that the bill fails to resolve the jurisdictional mess that comes from relying on the corporations power, leaving workers in my home state of Western Australia at the mercy of a state government that wants the worst of Work Choices back. It also leaves many workers that work for local government and non-government organisations in an unresolved jurisdictional mess. A number of people raised those concerns during the Senate inquiry.

In the course of the debate in the Committee of the Whole, the Greens will move a series of amendments to address what we view as some of the most glaring inequities and flaws in the bill. We do this with an eye to providing all those who work with the protections, rights and responsibilities of a fair, just and sustainable society. Yes, we believe the government has a mandate to provide a fairer system; but that fairer system is not there yet. The government went to the electorate during the election with a set of policies, as did the Greens. The Greens believe we also have a mandate to ensure the government keeps its promise to provide a fairer industrial relations system in this country. We will pursue amendments to ensure the government delivers on its mandate, because we also have a mandate to ensure that a fair system is provided. As I articulated a moment ago, we will move a series of amendments around awards, around the National Employment Standards, around collective bargaining and around unfair dismissal to ensure that the government keeps its promise to Australia.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on this occasion to speak in support of the Fair Work Bill 2008. I know that, along with me, hundreds of thousands of Australian workers and their families have been waiting for this bill to be introduced. The changes and benefits proposed under the Fair Work Bill put me in mind of the great Australian pastime of sport. Australians enjoy either competing in or watching team sports of many kinds. However, we expect all team sports to have the same underlying principles to ensure our enjoyment. We want two sides, equal in strength and ability, to ensure fair and balanced play. We want clearly defined rules that do not benefit one side over the other. We want the players to meet on a level playing field under the adjudication of a fair, impartial and experienced umpire. We want to see the players retain the right to dispute a decision if the play is not considered fair. Most of all, we want to see the players participate in the spirit of good sportsmanship. It is these principles in sport that make participating in and watching it so enjoyable. Fairness underpins our way of life and reflects the sort of society we want to create in work, play, family and community. Fairness has always lain at the heart of Labor philosophy and belief. That fairness will at last be restored to workplaces across our nation.

When the extreme measures of the former Howard Liberal government’s Work Choices laws were foisted upon Australian workers, the balance and fairness of the industrial relations system was lost. Without mandate, without warning and without common sense, the former Howard Liberal government moved to strip away basic, fundamental rights and conditions that ensured that Australian workplaces were secure and just. Employers were given the right to terminate employment with the get-out-of-jail-free excuse of ‘operational reasons’. Employers were given uneven powers that allowed them to pressure countless workers into signing AWAs, saying that these agreements would give workers the opportunity to bargain on the issues that were most important to them by trading away those that were not. In reality, the only opportunity workers had was to watch basic entitlements disappear from their conditions of employment. They watched as shift workers’ loadings were removed. They watched as annual leave loadings and penalty rates disappeared. They watched as public holidays, overtime allowances, rest breaks and any semblance of fairness vanished from their day-to-day reality, along with, of course, their redundancy payments.

As they watched as one by one their colleagues were dismissed for ‘operational reasons’, workers wondered when the former Liberal government had ever asked them whether they wanted these changes, when Work Choices had been brought to them as a question rather than a statement and when they had been given the opportunity to be heard. Australian workers and their families had not been given that opportunity before Work Choices was brought into existence, but they made sure that they were heard at the first possible opportunity afterwards. At the federal election in November 2007, Labor was clear about its intentions and direction for industrial relations. Labor heard the stories of people’s treatment under Work Choices and the loss of confidence in the system. It heard those comments, opinions and suggestions, and it was the Rudd Labor government that acted.

In the first half of its first term, the Rudd government has proven that it will deliver on its promises and commitments. The government has exemplified the importance of the issue by its decisive action, by moving swiftly to abolish AWAs and now by introducing the Fair Work Bill to bring Work Choices close to its final curtain, relegating it to the history books as bad policy born out of a lack of desire to listen to the people. The Fair Work Bill is a necessary step towards bringing the pendulum back towards the middle. This legislation will bring about a new system based on fair laws and a balancing of the needs of employees, unions and employers. No one side gets everything it wants, yet at the same time no one side gets to wield an uneven share of power. This sets the basis for fair and equitable play amongst the teams and allows the nation to drive productivity through a sense of security. This in turn will benefit us all.

The sense of security delivered in this bill is grounded in the reintroduction of safety nets. These safety nets, in the shape of standards and modern awards, will ensure that employees never again have to relinquish basic conditions of employment whilst retaining fundamental entitlements to cover the normal, human, day-to-day realities of life. It will be these safety nets that will allow Australian workers to go to work each day with a sense of ease and security and to do their jobs with conviction and certainty, knowing that their hard work will be rewarded consistently and appropriately.

The National Employment Standards will enshrine 10 basic standards of employment for all employees under the federal system from 1 January 2010. The basic standards will include (1) the right to work a maximum ordinary week of 38 hours for full-time employees, with appropriate remuneration (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.