Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

recognises the adverse affects of the federal Government’s Workchoices legislation;

(2)

take immediate action to protect working Australian men and women;

(3)

take specific action to address the uneven nature of the bargaining position and pressures on young Australians entering the workforce for the first time;

(4)

take note of the Howard Government’s agenda to drive down wages;

(5)

condemns national employer JetStar for its practice of charging job applicants for the application process; and

(6)

take action to prevent other employers from adopting similar practices.

It is a pleasure to move this motion standing in my name concerning the Work Choices legislation in general.

A resident of Blacktown, Tony Jansson, got in touch with me about an article he had read about Jetstar. The article said that people who wanted a cabin job with Jetstar were required to pay $40 for a personality test and $49 for a security check—in total $89. Tony asked me a very simple question, and I could not answer it. He said, ‘Is it legal for job applicants to be charged by employers to apply for a job?’ It seems a simple proposition, but at the time I just did not know the answer. I have now checked and have found that there is absolutely nothing in Commonwealth law that prevents an employer charging applicants a fee to apply for a job. There were thousands of applicants in this instance, and some 200 were selected.

One may say that, given the current level of employment, it is not a problem. I disagree. I think the principle is wrong. I do not think employers should be able to charge a prospective employee to apply for a job. I do not believe that is Australian. I do not believe that that is fair. I do not believe that that is providing a fair go. Any downturn of commodity prices or any hardening of the economic arteries in America or China will put enormous pressure on Australia. There is already speculation that commodity prices will ease—if not fall—significantly over time. What this means, particularly for young Australians—the class of 2006—is that, when the employment queues grow, employers will be able to be very choosy, even more choosy, and they will have the opportunity under this federal government to levy a charge on job applicants. It is un-Australian, it is unfair and it should be stopped.

In my electorate we have had the case of Spotlight. Spotlight opened a new store and, under the new AWA for Spotlight, new employees were asked to give up penalty rates, overtime payments, rest breaks, incentive based payments and bonuses, annual leave loading, public holiday pay rates, rostered days off, first aid allowances, meal allowances and uniform allowances—all for an extra 2c an hour. There was a huge reaction in my electorate about this outrage. In fact, lots of citizens spontaneously went to Blacktown’s Spotlight store and threw their Spotlight card at the employers there. They wanted to demonstrate how disgusted they were.

The Prime Minister defended it all on the basis of, ‘This is what you get when you are unemployed,’ and ‘This is what you get when you get a full-time job with Spotlight.’ What he did not say was that no-one was being offered full-time jobs at Spotlight. I have spoken to some of the workers at Mount Druitt and they were absolutely beside themselves because they were being offered casual work only and their AWA got rid of so many of the award conditions.

I feel for the class of 2006—that graduating body, mostly from year 12 and some from year 10—and worry about the sort of working world they are entering. They will have no choice, they will have no bargaining position and they will have to sign AWAs or go without a job. That is the only choice they will have. Also, they will be on second-class rates. I value each and every job a person in my electorate gets, but why should they give away so much? Why should it be so unfair for young Australians when they enter the workplace? (Time expired)

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever there were evidence required in the parliament that the Labor Party is unfit for office, this motion by the Chief Opposition Whip provides it. This motion proves that the federal Labor Party has no economic credibility or credentials and is certainly unfit to govern this great country. It is quite amazing that today, in the 21st century, the ALP still seems to live and breathe the world of 19th century industrial relations thinking. The ALP seems to think that the 21st century world is a world of Dickensian worker oppression and exploitation. The Labor Party’s ideas and policies are very much still rooted in a world of employer-employee conflict and clashes.

Today’s economic architecture of the 21st century is very different. No longer is it just the world of labour versus capital or labour versus management. For example, more than a million Australians own and operate their businesses from home. Today’s economic world is very different from the world that the Labor Party still thinks exists. The globalisation of labour, technology and capital in the 21st century absolutely demands that this country must build its prosperity on productivity, innovation and entrepreneurship. We must continue to reform our economy and create the economic framework in which businesses can employ people. That seems to be one of the things that the Labor Party forgets. It is businesses that employ people. It is businesses that give Australians the jobs that provide the economic security for them to sustain their families.

Australia’s Work Choices legislation, introduced in March, is all about that. It is all about creating the framework and the economic architecture that allows businesses in this country to be commercially successful and profitable and therefore to employ Australians. My fellow Australians, if a company is not successful profitably, if it is not successful commercially, it cannot employ anyone. Surely the Australian Labor Party understands such an elementary point.

Since March, when the workplace legislation was introduced here in the parliament, over 175,000 jobs have been created—over 1,000 new jobs a day. I am sure that many Australians listening today would not need to be reminded that, under Labor, unemployment stood at over 10 per cent. How was that economic justice? For a party that is all about so-called economic justice, how can one million people out of work provide economic security for their families? How is that beneficial to the lives of the working class, the people that the Labor Party claims to represent? Of course today the Australian people know that 4.8 per cent is the figure of unemployment in this country, the lowest in three decades. Participation rates are at about 65 per cent, which reflects very strongly that the policies and initiatives of the Howard government are the right ones in the 21st century.

This motion talks about young people in jobs. Let me just remind the Australian people that in July 1992, when the man in this parliament who seeks to be the Prime Minister from the Labor Party was the employment minister, unemployment for young people was over 10 per cent. Today in October 2006 that figure is 4.4 per cent. So let us not just hear what the rhetoric is from the Labor Party; let us look at the figures, let us look at the reality.

I want to refer to the status of women in this country. The unemployment rate for women is 4.8 per cent and there are 4.6 million women in the workforce—a 28 per cent increase since 1996. More than one million women have found jobs since the Howard government came to office in 1996. This motion attacks Jetstar, a company that is employing Australians. My goodness! Here is the Labor Party, which claims to represent the workers of this country, attacking an Australian company that is employing men and women throughout this country. This motion should be condemned in the parliament. This is a motion against business. This is a motion against economic security for everyday Australians. Over 200 people were employed by Jetstar recently out of expressions of interest from some 2,800— (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only last week we had the Prime Minister crowing about the fact that we had just witnessed the signing of the millionth AWA in this country. Predictably, people such as Peter Hendy, not to be done over on air time, tried to claim that this is a reason why the Labor Party should change its approach and not pursue a policy of ripping up Work Choices. I have to say it is a funny thing when you actually look at what they are crowing about. These AWAs, the ones that came in post Work Choices, are even worse than the ones that were there beforehand. At least the ones that were there before March this year were subject to such things as the no disadvantage test. The ones that have now been brought down, which are now permissible under this new federal law, mean that there is no no disadvantage test for individual contracts and that people can legally be put on with terms and conditions which are below the award. They are not subject to review by an independent umpire. Employees can be coerced to sign these agreements. They can be legally forced to sign a contract or to not take the job.

The Prime Minister has made that point time and time again—when he refers to the dispute at Boeing or anywhere else: you either sign a contract or you do not take the job. They are the facts. Of all the agreements that were signed up until June this year that were reviewed by the Office of the Employment Advocate, it was found that, for every single contract entered into, at least one of the award conditions was extracted from the contract. Two-thirds of the agreements reviewed had the leave loading and penalty rates removed. Nearly one in four did not have a pay rise during the agreement. Almost one in five had their award conditions withdrawn or replaced in these new AWAs. These are the new AWAs which came in solely with the advent of the Work Choices legislation.

I was very interested to hear the member for Ryan refer to the position of women, because I also heard that when the member for Chifley spoke. Women were, quite frankly, right at the front end of this legislation. One of the first instances was industrial agreements being forced on workers at Spotlight. As you will recall, for women working in local haberdashery stores such as Spotlight, there was no overtime payment for excess hours and no overtime payment for Thursday evening work. There were no overtime or penalty rates for public holidays and weekend work and no rest periods—all of that, for a lousy 2c an hour. And what was put by this government? ‘If you don’t like it, don’t take the job.’ That is precisely what the view of this government is. This government had its view articulated by the member for Macarthur. The people of Spotlight must have found cold comfort from the words of the member for Macarthur when he said that he had no problem with jobs that pay no overtime, that do not allow for meal breaks or that pay no penalty rates.

Through the local media, he went on to tell these people, ‘If they don’t like it, they don’t have to take the job.’ He went on to say, ‘They can always go and start their own small business.’ I have to say that for the people who work in Campbelltown at the local haberdashery store—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or at Mount Druitt.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or up there at Mount Druitt, or anywhere else, it must be very heartening to be told by a member of this parliament who was privy to the passing of this legislation that if they do not like it they do not have to take the job and, what is more, that they might think about starting their own business along the way. That is the arrogance of this government. That is the way that they treat people. To the little people out there—the people who are trying to support their families, trying to put food on the table and trying to do the little things that are necessary to get the kids to school and everything else—this is the arrogance that this government is showing: ‘If you don’t like the contract, don’t take the job.’

This is only one instance. My electorate is littered now with casualties of this legislation. When the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations visited my electorate only recently, I invited him to a meeting of all the people who claim to be victims of Work Choices. He and the member for Macarthur failed to turn up. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this motion put by the member for Chifley, because it gives me the opportunity to put into the trash can of rhetoric the Labor Party’s hypocrisy on Australian workplace agreements. Australian workplace agreements have been highly successful in improving the conditions and the lot of thousands of workers throughout Australia. In fact, the often touted line in this House is that this is a race to the bottom for wages. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, under workplace agreements, wages have risen considerably. Unemployment has bottomed. For example, in Australia at the moment unemployment levels are at 5.1 per cent. In my state of Western Australia, unemployment is at the absolutely outstanding level of 3.5 per cent. Which is the state in this country that has the most AWAs? Western Australia. I will go into the details electorate by electorate later.

The people opposite are in an industrial relations time warp. They want to go back to the dinosaur age of the 1980s and early 1990s when they had control of this country and they bragged about lowering wages and conditions. In fact, in the 13 years of the Labor government, we know that wages only rose in this country by 1.2 per cent. That compares to a more than 16 per cent growth in wages in the 10 years that the Howard government has been in place. Who has done best? Who has a proud boast on this issue? The Howard government. In the state of Western Australia, they offer employee-employer arrangements as industrial agreements in the workplace. They are only enlisting in those by the hundreds, yet, as we heard today from the Prime Minister, people have signed one million AWAs in this country.

Mr Beazley says that he wants to rip them up. I have news for Mr Beazley. In his electorate of Brand, there are 23,335 people on Australian workplace agreements. Putting that into context, in an electorate of about 80,000 people he has close to between one in three and one in four workers on AWAs. And he is saying to the people in his electorate of Brand, ‘I’m going to rip up your Australian workplace agreements, because our union bosses—our political masters, the unions in this country—have told us that we have to rail against them.’ Something like 17 per cent of people in the Australian workforce now belong to a union. There are more people now who run a small business than there are people who belong to a union. How out of date are the people on the other side of this House when they say, ‘Our political bosses and masters have told us that we’ve got to try and talk down Australian workplace agreements’—agreements which offer better terms and conditions?

They say, ‘If you don’t sign it, you’re in trouble.’ The bottom line is that that is not true. We know that the award is the safety net and that it is illegal to be forced to sign an Australian workplace agreement. If they try and make you sign an Australian workplace agreement, you go to the Office of Workplace Services. I will give the number: 1300724200. You will get up to $4,000 legal aid to fight your case if you have been harshly dealt with by this legislation. That is the truth of the matter.

Believe it or not, the electorate in South Australia with the highest number of AWAs is the seat of Adelaide. There are 11,250 in the seat of Adelaide. Those numbers have increased by 10 per cent since the new Work Choices legislation came in. In the electorate of the member for Chifley, who brought this motion on, there are 7,734 people on workplace agreements. The electorate in Queensland with the highest number of people on workplace agreements is the electorate of Dawson. There are 13,587 people on workplace agreements there. In Tasmania, the seat of Franklin has 7,097. The electorate in Victoria with the highest number is the seat of Melbourne, with 15,243. The electorate in New South Wales with the highest number is the seat of Sydney, with 11,861. As an aside, surprisingly, the electorate with the least is the seat of Shortland, with 803. I speak on behalf of my constituents. In the seat of Canning, there are 26,101 people on AWAs, which is an increase of more than 10 per cent since Work Choices came in.

In the edition of the West Australian that was brought to the attention of the House today, the miner Rob Davies said, ‘Keep your hands off my AWA.’ He said, ‘I’ve got a message for the unions and the Labor Party,’ who are hoping to win him over. He wants to keep his industrial agreement. ‘Keep your hands off my AWA.’ That is what workers want. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to rebut a couple of points that have been made and which are central to this motion. Fees for interviews? I do not think so. Purely the purview of large business? I do not think so. How about teachers applying for a job in the state school systems who have to pay for their own first aid certificates for their own mandatory notification and qualification courses? It is a common thing across most workplaces in Australia.

The line that is often put forward is that there is no choice—just do not take the job if you do not like the conditions. How about someone who rocks up to a place that is employing on awards or one that has enterprise bargaining agreements? If you do not like the terms of that, you do not get any choice. You have to walk away or take what is offered. It is a really shallow argument that is being put forward because it is not being applied evenly to both sides of the discussion.

The main thing I would like to address, though, is the underlying concept of the argument that is put forward and this false claim that the agenda of this government is to drive down wages and conditions. Why would we want to do that? The people we are talking about are our neighbours, friends and families. In case you had not noticed, we also happen to live in a democracy. The argument is that this government supports business and the ALP supports the worker. Excuse me, but big business does not vote; people vote. If this government deliberately sets out to disadvantage people it would be the equivalent of committing political suicide. Why would a government do that?

The claim is that the sky is going to fall in without the unions in place to protect people. Hello: only 17 per cent of the private sector workforce belongs to a union, so the great advances that have taken place in terms of employer-employee relations over the last decade have occurred with 83 per cent of the workforce dealing directly with their employers—without unions. So the argument that all of a sudden life as we know it will cease is completely false.

I understand the concern for a fair go. I recognise that many people, both private citizens and those who are members of a union, are genuinely concerned. But the evidence also goes to show that they are operating on false premises. The best example of this is a discussion I had with an education union official who was protesting in Wakefield at one point in time. He was arguing vehemently and passionately to my face that the reason he opposed the Australian technical colleges was that they mandated that every worker had to be on an AWA. When I told him this was not correct, he said, ‘It is correct and this is why I oppose it.’ He believed it firmly.

I thought that perhaps, given I was involved in the system, I was privy to some information that he was not. So I went and checked the public website. I looked at the section called ‘Frequently asked questions’. Sure enough, there was the question, ‘How will people be employed?’ It actually states quite clearly that to attract and retain high-quality staff, Australian technical colleges will offer the option of an Australian workplace agreement. Yet again, we see that, even in a small but significant area, people are jumping to conclusions and not understanding the facts. The ALP and the unions are building on the ease of selling fear and misinforming people so that people get passionate, worked up and unnecessarily afraid when the reality is quite different.

Just take the cases that have been presented here in the parliament—for example, that of the Lufthansa subsidiary. The claim was that this AWA reduces penalty rates. But they did not disclose the fact that it also offers a really good bonus scheme and the workers stood to get a 13 per cent increase in their pay. What is more, that bonus scheme was of the same model that the CFMEU had negotiated for members of Dunlop Bedding in 2005. And if the workers did not like it, they had the choice to remain on their collective agreement. So the facts were not presented, which is why people are being misled.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I still have one minute to go.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. Member for Wakefield, it expires now, whether or not you have any time on the clock. I am sorry. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.