More speeches

Workplace Relations

Speech to Parliament

Fifteen minutes from the member for Deakin and what have we learned? We learned that he had a past as a psychologist. We learned about his thoughts on the Leader of the Opposition and his living arrangements. We learned that he thinks the member for Gorton is a good bloke-that is one of the few things I agree with him on-and we learned that he does not want the member for Bruce to start doing stunts, which is one of the other things I agreed with him on. What we did not hear is anything which disproves that the mounting evidence shows that the government's extreme industrial relations changes are driving down the wages and conditions of many Australians. As a member of the ALP's industrial relations task force I can absolutely say that this evidence is overwhelming. I would remind the member for Deakin and other members opposite of the reason why it was necessary for us to establish this task force and to work so hard on its deliberations. The ALP had to take this initiative to set up the task force in order to do something that the Howard government did not have the courtesy to do: that is, to let the Australian public have their say.

Labor had to step in and stand up for the people of Australia when the government refused to hear them out. This happens on many occasions, but with industrial relations the feelings of betrayal, confusion and outrage with the Howard government were certainly at the highest levels that I have seen in my time in this parliament. The government, let us remember, had absolutely no mandate to push these changes upon the Australian people. Where were these plans during the election campaign? Where were they on the member for Kingston's brochures during the election campaign? They did not let Australians have a say about them then. What a disgusting abuse of our democratic institutions and, more importantly, what a disgusting abuse of the faith of the Australian people. By not making its plans for extreme industrial relations changes clear during the last election campaign, this government deliberately misled the people of Australia. What an absolute nerve this government has.

Let us not forget that when it ran its last election campaign it was based on a scare campaign on interest rates. This government gained re-election by scaring the most economically vulnerable members of our community into believing that they would be better off under a coalition government. What a disgraceful nerve it now has in turning around and robbing these very same Australians of their fair pay, their conditions and their rights in the workplace and hurting the workers who rely most upon protection. I believe that an integral part of the role of government is to look after those who have trouble, for any range of reasons, in looking after themselves and their families. This government spits in the face of those Australians who most need government support, those Australians who rely on their government to watch their back. It is the ALP, though, who are seeking to listen to these Australians and to let them have their say.

Let us look further into why we had to set up our task force to listen to Australians. The Senate committee established to investigate the proposed laws last December contained terms of reference that did not allow senators to examine the potential impact of the unfair dismissal laws. And, unlike the Labor task force, the committee sat for only five days and it did not leave Canberra. It spoke to a fraction of those who put in submissions and it failed to properly analyse the impact of these changes on the broader community and those that these changes would most affect.

In contrast to this, the ALP task force set out to give ordinary Australians a say in one of the most extreme industrial relations changes our nation has ever seen. Since January the Labor task force on industrial relations has travelled to cities and towns, listening to the concerns of employees, families, community organisations, unions, church groups and small businesses. We have visited every state and territory and held public hearings in 20 electorates, including the two electorates of the members opposite. We asked Australians how they felt, and Australia replied to us. Their answers were incredibly interesting and the government should stop and pay them some attention.

It is of no surprise that concerns should be so widely shared across the community, especially when one considers the incredibly broad range of people who have been affected by this legislation. This legislation affects millions of Australia's most vulnerable workers. It affects workers who will be punished by unfair Australian workplace agreements which they have no choice but to sign up to. It will affect millions of pensioners, whose pensions are set in relation to average male earnings, which are now threatened by the establishment of the so-called Fair Pay Commission. It will affect our society as a whole and the fair go that we have afforded each other for so long.

I would now like to draw the attention of the House to several of our task force's key findings. Firstly, we found that the Fair Pay Commission has been established simply to drive down minimum wages. It has already delayed the first national wage decision, denying the lowest paid a much needed pay rise. And, contrary to the government's beliefs, the ALP is not alone in calling attacks on minimum wage standards an outrage. The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell, commented on Sunday, saying: I don't particularly like the new IR laws because I'm frightened they could be used to force down minimum wages. And Laurie Oakes, one of Australia's most respected journalists, wrote in this week's Bulletin: Cardinal Pell is right to be concerned. These laws will lead to lower pay and worse conditions for a not insignificant number of workers. The government has known it all along. It lied in claiming other-wise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)- The member for Adelaide will have to withdraw the word 'lied'. You cannot even do it in a quote.

Ms KATE ELLIS-I withdraw the word 'lied'. Furthermore, the 2006 OECD unemployment outlook report concluded that coordinated wage bargaining at the enterprise level 'is found to significantly reduce unemployment'. The OECD further concluded that, 'No significant direct impact of the level of the minimum wage on unemployment is identified,' and that, 'The minimum wage could encourage higher participation by helping to make work pay for the low skilled.' The government has been so blinded by its arrogance it can no longer draw a distinction between untruths and the truth. Sadly, it is our constituents, the Australian workers, who are feeling the impact of this government's ideological rampage on standards that ensure a fair go for all Australians.

Secondly, one of our further findings was that, contrary to assertions by employer bodies, many small businesses worry about the impact of Work Choices on their employees and on their businesses. They have expressed the concern that Work Choices condones the actions of rogue employers and pressures good employers to take the low-wage road. I represent many small businesses in my electorate of Adelaide and have spoken with many of them, and many others, throughout this task force's inquiries.
Unlike the government, who come in here and talk pure rhetoric, I am actually interested in what small business owners themselves have to say - and I am giving them their chance to have an input. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have good relationships with their employees and they have expressed concern that the use of Work Choices by their competitors will force them to choose between their employees' employment conditions and the future of their businesses. Furthermore, the task force found that many employers consider Work Choices to be prescriptive, confusing and complex.

One of these, George Liarakos, is a small business owner who feels threatened by the new changes. A small business owner and pharmacist from Melbourne, George told our task force that the government's IR laws are unfairly skewed against the interests of employees, they prevent genuine bargaining and they allow competitors to undercut the conditions of employment that Mr Liarakos offers his employees, which will place him under considerable stress to do the same. This parliament should be encouraging best practice in employment relations, not worse.

Who do you think we should believe? Do we believe the government, who would have us believe that workers will not have their wages and conditions cut-though they certainly will not take the time to guarantee this-or do we instead listen to the employers themselves, the employers who themselves are saying that they will have no choice but to cut wages and conditions once their competitors do so? That is what these laws do: they start up the race to the bottom.

Thirdly, the task force found that the abolition of the no disadvantage test means that Australian workplace agreements ignore the inherent inequality in the bargaining relationship between the employer and an employee. The task force considered that AWAs were always unfair, except in the rarest of circumstances. We have seen this backed up in the Senate estimates, where it was revealed that 100 per cent of these AWAs which had been checked since Work Choices' commencement have excluded at least one award protected condition.

I could talk for a long time about the mounting evidence which is showing that these changes are driving down the wages and conditions of most Australian workers. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise that you cannot be as generous with your time as I would like, but I will say one thing: the government did not give the Australian people the opportunity to have their say on these laws. This is what the Labor Party is doing now and you can be sure that this is what the Labor Party will be doing into the future. We will be ensuring that there will indeed be a time when the government will be forced to listen to the views of the people, that is, when they have a chance to be heard loud and clear next year on election day. You can mark my words that I and members on this side of the House will be making sure that this mounting evidence of the detrimental effects of these laws on Australian workers is well known to all workers and to those in Kingston. (Time expired)

More speeches