Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment Participation (Senator Arbib) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and Birmingham today relating to the award modernisation program.

The government made a promise; it promised the Australian people that its workplace relations reforms would not jeopardise jobs. The government promised the Australian people that its award overhaul would not increase costs for employers and would not disadvantage workers. The government made this promise repeatedly. The government requested the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to implement its promise. The government did this repeatedly in the face of warnings from experts—its very own experts in the sense of their being the experts who helped to advise the government about the implementation of its workplace reform programs. Professor Andrew Stewart, for example, has been warning the government publicly in committees of the Senate of the ‘shortcomings’ and ‘tensions’ inherent in its promise. Professor Stewart has said very clearly that ‘standardisation’ or ‘averaging’ inevitably means disadvantage somewhere.

In the face of these warnings the government has persisted in repeating its promise. The problem with its promise is that the government’s award overhaul is forcing ‘one size fits all’ and it is a fit that bodes badly for many. They are forcing wine-grape-growing farmers to face the same award faced by wine retailers. They are forcing country shows to be covered by the same award that covers Luna Park. They are forcing country and metro delis to be covered by the same award that would apply to Coles and Woolies. I have not seen a petrol bowser at my metro deli!

The government’s workplace award overhaul is foisting penalties on industries that have little choice, little control, in their working hours. The government, the Deputy Prime Minister, does not control when a zucchini ripens and needs picking, when a lettuce goes limp, when customers want to go to restaurants and cafes and when people want to go to country shows. The Deputy Prime Minister is working that out, so she has intervened to give some industries assistance: the restaurant and cafe sector, the horticultural sector and others. The government knows that other industries face the same challenges and they deserve the same deputy prime ministerial intervention to ensure that the government’s promise is kept.

What of the promise? The small business minister, Craig Emerson, told the press last week, ‘The commission is ensuring that any cost increases are minimised’—concession: there will be cost increases!—‘for businesses so that they are phased in over that five-year period.’ Well, Minister, come on! Delayed jobs death is still jobs death. A promise broken in five years is still a promise broken. The Prime Minister tries to say, ‘Oh, it was not a promise; it was an objective.’ Well, Prime Minister, an objective is a goal, and the Prime Minister knows the government has kicked an own goal.

They did this in the face of their own experts telling them there was tension inherent in their promise. They kept on repeating it and now it is incumbent upon the government to keep it. Delaying jobs destruction for five years is still jobs destruction. The Deputy Prime Minister must immediately intervene to help those other industries that are facing the same cost challenges as the industries that she has already intervened to help. Country shows, arguably, got to first base in the commission on Friday. The commission recognised that country shows can have their own award, but they, like restaurants and cafes and like horticulture and call centres, have only got to first base. There is a long way to go before those industries get home, and there is a long way to go before the government keeps its promise that its bungled award overhaul will not cost jobs, will not increase costs for employers and will not disadvantage workers. The government should suspend its bungled award overhaul until it can work out how to keep its promise.

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

It is interesting to follow Senator Fisher, who used to work in the office of Minister Peter Reith—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And proud of it!

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

So you should be. We, too, are very glad that you worked there because in the end you assisted us in having one of the most magnificent electoral victories we have had in modern history. Thank you very much, Senator Fisher, and all of you other coalition characters. You would think, from what you were telling us here today, that you had some sympathy for those workers you were talking about. There is no way in the world that these people have any sympathy for those workers that Senator Fisher referred to.

There is a lady who worked in a firm named Spotlight in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, who was a member of her union and had been a lifelong Liberal voter. As a result of the changes effected by Senator Fisher’s government, that lady never voted Liberal again. In fact, she was one of the people who were in our election campaigns saying that we would tear up and destroy Australian workplace agreements. That is exactly what we did. But, Senator Fisher, don’t come in here and say you have got any sympathy for these people who may be underpaid or low paid. You have no sympathy for them at all because we have seen you in action—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you told them about their jobs?

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hutchins, would you please address the chair. And, Senator Fisher, you were heard in silence and I think Senator Hutchins should be afforded the same courtesy.

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

As I was saying, regarding Senator Fisher in her previous role: we know exactly where she came from. We knew that the coalition wanted individual workplace agreements. We knew that they really wanted to have them as they were: stripped down to a minimum number of guarantees. They really wanted to make sure that the workplace was solely and wholly controlled by the employer so that he or she—the employer—could do exactly what they wanted to do with the wages and conditions and the benefits of those workers.

The coalition might have far more honourable men and women on that side who might have a bit of credibility when they get up and speak on these issues, but certainly not Senator Fisher—not someone who was cloned in Minister Reith’s office, not someone who was responsible for some of the most destructive and debilitating actions by a coalition government in industrial relations since the Great Depression. So don’t come in here, Senator Fisher, and cry crocodile tears on behalf of these people, because you don’t believe it. Mr Deputy President, she does not believe it. She does not believe anything other than that the power in the workplace should be in the hands of the employer, not the employee. She does not believe in a compulsory arbitration system. She did not argue that at all in her earlier contribution. She does not believe in any of that. And, as I said, she does not believe in any of the other things that she was carrying on about in relation to low-paid people.

We went to the last election saying we would abolish Australian workplace agreements, and we did. There has been a great sigh of relief in the community, from men and women who have been put in positions where they have had to accept what the boss showed them or they would get it in the neck. That has changed. At the moment we are in the process, as we said when we went to an election on this, of a five-year phase-in period. We also said that we would have these transitional arrangements, and that they would go through Fair Work Australia. We could not have been any clearer when we went to the last election. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, made it very clear what our industrial relations policy was. When men and women went and voted they knew exactly what they were voting for. The trade unions who negotiated with the then Labor opposition knew exactly what they were prepared for. So no-one can come into this place and cry crocodile tears, like Mr Reith’s clone did, and suggest—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I think you should be careful with what you are saying, Senator.

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

Well, Senator Fisher. Senator Fisher argued that this would not bring anything new to the people involved. We are introducing a system that we believe will be fair for the employee and the employer. We have done this with a significant amount of consultation. We are trying to reduce the number of awards. This is not easy—indeed, Senator Fisher highlighted some of the difficulties—but it will be done, because that is exactly what we said we would do. We said, when we went to the election, that this was our policy. And just like that lady in Spotlight in Coffs Harbour, who voted Labor for the first time in her life, there are many hundreds of thousands more people who did that—and I would like to thank you very much for that, Senator Fisher. (Time expired)

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

I rise to continue this debate taking note of the answers given by Senator Arbib. I do so following Senator Hutchins, who I know spent an inordinate amount of time talking about what Senator Fisher, my good friend and colleague, may or may not believe. He wanted to spend a lot of time talking about how the government had represented this policy to the Australian people. Well, let’s talk about what people might believe, and how the government may have represented this policy to the Australian people—because indeed the Australian people now know that they cannot believe the word of this government. This government went to the last election promising, as of course it did on so many other issues, some type of magic pudding formula with its award modernisation process. It was telling people, in clear and black-and-white terms, in words from the Deputy Prime Minister—the then deputy Labor leader, the Hon. Julia Gillard, no less—that no worker would be worse off and that no employer would face increased costs. This was the formula. This was what the Australian people were told in the lead-up to the last election. This is what they were told about award modernisation. These are the facts that Senator Hutchins so glibly overlooks.

Look at what the Australian Industrial Relations Commission came out and said, when it reached one of the first stages of this process last week. It said:

... it is clear that some award conditions will increase leading to cost increases and others will decrease leading to potential disadvantage for employees …

There we have it, in the commission’s own words. In less than one sentence it has shown to be false two promises made by this government about its award modernisation process—shown to be false the fact that there would be no increased costs to employers; shown to be false the fact that no employee would be worse off. So Senator Hutchins should not dare come in here and talk to the coalition about what we may or may not believe on this side, because we know that when we went to the last election with our industrial relations policies in place we were representing an honest and true system to the Australian people. The other side were representing a con job. That is what the Australian people got from the industrial relations system that this government is trying to implement.

So, what will we get from award modernisation? What do Australian industries face? Let us look at what some of the stakeholders believe to be the case. The retail sector predicts increased labour costs of up to 22 per cent—a threat to 1½ million retail workers around Australia. Those on the other side want to talk about jobs. I have 1.5 million of them here in the retail sector that are under threat from this process. The fast food and takeaway sector believe it could cost them more than $600 million, with thousands more jobs at stake. The Pharmacy Guild, and the pharmacy sector, can see thousands of jobs at stake from a 10 to 20 per cent increase in costs. Aged-care associations, particularly in my home state—and your home state, Mr Deputy President—of South Australia, see significant cost pressures as a result of the award modernisation process. Those aged-care businesses will face an increase in costs of between 10 and 20 per cent. They have come to see me. They have talked to me about their concerns—and the concerns are that it will impact directly on the care given to older Australians in those aged-care facilities, that it will hit their bottom line, that it will hit their costs and that as a result they will not be able to deliver the same quality of care to older Australians, because of this government’s breach of its promise. And we see the hospitality sector facing increased costs.

Senator Arbib likes to come in here and say: ‘We’re working with industry and employer groups. We’re working with them to go through these issues.’ Well, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table every time. When it came to the hospitality industry, it took story after story on the front page of the Australian and other newspapers and intense lobbying from the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association before the government would agree to recognise that, lo and behold, the core trading times of the restaurant and catering sector happen to be evenings and weekends. Blow me down! Like you couldn’t see that one coming! The agricultural and country shows sector, after-hours pharmacies and all of these businesses with core trading times that are not nine to five Monday to Friday are the challenges this government needs to face up to. It needs to recognise that it has misled the Australian public and change this policy.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition harped on about the industrial relations changes for at least two rounds of estimates and they have started up again this week. The Rudd government was elected on the back of killing off Work Choices, which the Australian people no longer wanted. The Rudd government is trying to implement a modern national economy, and we can no longer afford to have thousands and thousands of complex and outmoded industrial instruments that stop at state borders. That is why, just as the standard rail gauge was, award modernisation is an important national reform.

But of course those hypocrites on the other side, who spent years not worrying—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bilyk, you must withdraw the term ‘hypocrites’. It is unparliamentary.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the term. Those on the other side, for the many years that they were in government, did not care about working Australians—the same working Australians I represented in my previous employment. I saw, day after day, the impact of their government’s choices on those working Australians, the working men and women of Australia, who voted for the Rudd government because they had had enough of the now opposition’s industrial relations system.

Those opposite are just grandstanding again. They come into this chamber and they grandstand and talk as though they care about people. They do not; they care about themselves. We have seen how they treat workers. We watched the implementation of balaclavas and dogs on the wharves. We have seen that sort of thing. The rest of Australia has seen it. They have no support for workers. They do not even accept the need for the stimulus package, which is the greatest way to increase the standards for Australian workers because the basis of it is increasing employment.

Our modern awards will simplify and significantly reduce more than 2,400 state and federal awards and instruments into around 130 streamlined, simple modern awards that are easy to find and apply. This will provide much-needed simplicity for employers operating across state boundaries. It is a reform that employers have been arguing for, long and loud, over decades, and we are doing something about it. Overwhelmingly, the task of award modernisation has been a major success, managed by the AIRC—which we know those on the other side do not agree with having—with professionalism and expertise. It is a fairly major task to reduce all these awards and to bring Australia into the present.

As indicated in the past, the minister is prepared to intervene in the award modernisation process. Where that is required, she will do that. Mr Turnbull, who voted five times in parliament against the infrastructure stimulus plan and who is the Leader of the Opposition, does not support working people. It is a baseline standard of the opposition that they do not support working people. If they did, as I said before, they would support this government in the plan to build roads, schools, rail and hospitals and in regard to national broadband, in which my home state of Tasmania is leading the way. It has had a significant effect there and in other areas.

I want to point out two major projects for Braddon that were just announced last week: the restoration of the tall ship the Julie Burgess and the establishment of four community infrastructure construction and maintenance teams. These are jobs for ordinary working Australians. These are jobs that will not only help save the economy but give ordinary people the chance to work under a new streamlined approach. That approach is absolutely necessary to ensure that we move into the future in a balanced way that is fair for employees, employers and businesses both large and small—which also tend to be forgotten by those members on the other side all too often.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise and speak in this debate as a representative of the party which Senator Bilyk says does not care about the conditions of working Australians but which, in government, over 12 or 13 years was able to deliver real increases, of almost 20 per cent, in the take-home pay of working Australians. That is an increase in the take-home pay, after inflation, of Australian workers, particularly those at the lowest level of the socioeconomic scale. That was where we demonstrated how much we regard the needs and interests of Australian workers.

It is clear from this debate tonight and from question time that Senator Bilyk, Senator Hutchins, Minister Arbib and, for that matter, Minister Gillard and the Prime Minister are unable to face the bleeding obvious: Labor is in the process, as we speak, of breaking a clear promise it made to the Australian people at the last election, which was that they would implement an award modernisation program throughout Australia without disadvantaging either employers or employees. We can see that; every employer organisation in Australia can see that; a number of unions can see that, and have said so publicly; the media can see that, and they are reporting it; and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission can see that. But, apparently, Labor members opposite and in the other place cannot see it—or, at least, they do not have the decency to come into this place or elsewhere and say so in as many words. I am prepared to say so, as are my colleagues on this side of the chamber.

Labor cannot honour that promise. It is a complete farce, and the process of implementing industrial relations reform is giving flesh to that broken promise in a way which is damaging the interests of employment in Australia. What do I mean by that? It is obvious that, as they fail to preserve the conditions of employees, they are damaging those employees’ conditions in the workplace and, as they impose higher costs on employers, which they are also in the process of doing, they are reducing the prospects of those employers to offer employment in the future and diminishing the opportunity for unemployment in Australia to be reduced.

I am quite prepared to take the Prime Minister at his word on these matters. Only last week the Prime Minister was very explicitly asked on radio about the promise that he made: that there would be neither employers nor employees disadvantaged by the award modernisation program. I want to quote to the Senate what the Prime Minister had to say in response to the question: ‘So, does your promise still stand?’ The Prime Minister said:

So you see if in the determination in large part responsive but made independently of government submissions to the AIRC, firstly a long term transition process because we are acutely conscious of the impact of the global economic recession both on employers and employees; but secondly the specific provisions also to assist with any ups or downs in the process; and thirdly a capacity to review those on the way through.

What does that mean? Is that ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Maybe’ or ‘I am having a good day and I am thinking about what I am going to have for dinner tonight’? This was the Prime Minister of Australia asked to confirm his commitment to the Australian people, to workers in Australia, that there would be no-one worse off as a result of his award modernisation program—and he could not do it. He went on to be asked the same question, in almost exactly the same words, twice more by the journalist and gave answers, similarly mystifying and similarly opaque, which I dare not quote to the Senate in case people fall asleep.

The fact is, as we have heard amply demonstrated on this side of the chamber, that Labor cannot honour this promise. It is a complete farce. As they are going about grappling with the falsity of the promise that they have made, they are doing real damage to the prospects of employment in a whole range of sectors across the Australian community.

I have been talking, as have Senator Birmingham and Senator Fisher, to Australian employers about what is happening in their particular sectors. I spoke last week to the Pharmacy Guild, who talked about how the capacity for students to work on a part-time or casual basis within that industry is being squeezed out by the award modernisation process. The guild has gone to the Industrial Relations Commission to ask them to fix these problems. They are not being fixed. There are serious concerns and these awards begin in a few weeks time. We are not seeing responsiveness to these problems and, as a result, Australian workers and employers will suffer.

Question agreed to.