Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the Howard government’s record on job security. This is the government that brought us the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which included Australian workplace agreements, undermined freedom of association and right of entry and excluded certain workers from unfair dismissal rights. The argument we heard from the member for Moncrieff today once again shows how out of touch the opposition is with the community. Of course, we all know that the government attempted many times to bring changes to the Workplace Relations Act over many years but were unsuccessful in getting their radical laws through the Senate. However, when gaining control of the Senate in 2006, the Howard government quickly used their majority to ram through Work Choices, a law that fundamentally stripped away job security for millions of workers throughout this country. Both the Workplace Relations Act and Work Choices sought to undermine the right of representation, to allow for the proliferation of casuals in employment and to encourage more and more employers to provide advice to their employees that they should go off and get an ABN number and start working for themselves as contractors. Alternatively, companies were shifting the employment arrangements of their workers over to labour hire companies without their knowledge just to avoid their responsibilities. And those responsibilities went not just to employment conditions but also to workplace health and safety obligations.

As an example of how extreme the Work Choices laws were, let us make a comparison of the industrial relations laws over the years. In Queensland, the first unfair dismissal case was in 1916 through the Fair Treatment Tribunal. The worker was a sewage transport worker with the Maryborough Shire Council. His union ran the case and won, proving that the worker had been unfairly dismissed. Compare that case to the rights of workers in 2006. A worker dismissed by the same council would have had no recourse to pursue an unfair dismissal claim through any tribunal. So in 2006, workers in Australia had fewer rights than workers in 1916. This is the Liberal Party’s idea of job security. Ninety years after the first dismissal case took place in Queensland, the Howard government had unethically stripped away the right of protection from workers. One of the key areas of the changes through the Howard government’s Work Choices laws was the unfair dismissal laws.

Prior to the election last year, Labor and the unions were being accused of scaremongering. It was said that everything was just union rhetoric. Today, the claims of Labor, workers and unions across this country have been proved to be correct. Examples of despicable treatment of employees by employers were arising on an ongoing basis since the introduction of Work Choices. Australia had seen groups of workers being sacked from permanent employment, only to be offered casual employment the next day. Workers were sacked by text message. Workers were being sacked for allegedly sneering at their employer, accused of being disrespectful. The Howard government claimed that workers could not be sacked for family reasons. However, Work Choices allowed the employer to dismiss someone without giving any reason at all, so it was extremely difficult to prove a case of discrimination. Even if the worker could prove it, they were required under the industrial relations laws to file the matter through the Federal Court. The average worker could not afford to go through such a convoluted, expensive legal process when the maximum compensation if they were successful was six months wages. We know that employees in businesses with fewer than 100 employees were excluded from pursuing an unfair dismissal claim. In addition, workers in large businesses were excluded for their first six months of employment. Even if you managed to get over all these hurdles, the employer could claim that you were sacked for operational reasons and the dismissal would be considered fair.

On 10 August 2005 Peter Costello, the then federal Treasurer, referring to businesses excluded from the unfair dismissal laws, was quoted in the Australian as saying, ‘There is no magic in the number 100’. He went on to say: ‘In years to come, unfair dismissal exclusion should be extended to all companies. I’d be open to this idea.’ This was the man who wanted to be Prime Minister. The opposition should not need to think too hard as to why they lost government. They were and continue to be out of touch with the community, and they intentionally turned their backs on workers in this country. This is the same party which yesterday ridiculed a federal member for giving supermarket tips. I suggest that you talk to any mother who goes shopping, and she will tell you that she looks for the specials when she walks in the door. No-one can believe the opposition when it comes to job security. The Rudd Labor government is serious about a fair go, and that is why it is introducing its Forward with Fairness policy.