Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

It is funny, Senator Bilyk, because we know that there were all those other commitments—so many other commitments—before the last federal election given by the coalition and, at that time, Mr Abbott that they did not have any problem breaking. So, trying to con the community—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator McKenzie is leaving the chamber because her contribution actually showed the reason why this bill has to be opposed. It has to be opposed. She was not standing up here and talking about the broken commitments of the government in other areas. She was saying to the Senate: this is honouring a commitment given by the coalition in the lead-up to the last election. That is not quite right, because this bill goes further—and the government know it. It goes further than the commitment they gave prior to the election. Senator McKenzie's contribution, as always, has a focus on unions. I do not know what it is about Senator McKenzie and that focus. I would say to Senator McKenzie that she should really be looking at the work that unions do in protecting workers' rights, in supporting workers and their jobs, in this country. She has an ideological fixation on unions, and it does her no good. She comes in here and gives the same old speech every time.

We, the Labor Party senators, on this side do oppose the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2014. This bill was supported by Mr Abbott. Now we have the Abbott-Turnbull government. Who is next? I do not know. It is a bill that represents just another element of this government's attack on unions; it is another element of its attack on workers. Make no mistake: any attack on unions and their rights is an attack on workers and their rights. Any attack on unions is an attack on people's conditions of employment and an erosion of their industrial protections. From the very moment this government came to power it has been working to erode and undermine workers' rights. Most recently, we have seen it with their attacks on penalty rates and minimum wages and also their attacks on workers in the Australian shipping industry. Of course, we know on this side know that if this bill gets through—if those laws come to pass—it will decimate Australian jobs in the shipping industry.

What we have seen so far from this government is their failure to protect Australian jobs again, not only in the shipping industry, not only with their attack on penalty rates and minimum wages but also in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and in their politically driven royal commission. This bill, like all these other attacks on workers, is unfair—it is deeply unfair. But this is exactly what we have come to expect from this government. They did it before when Mr Howard was Prime Minister, and they are doing it again. They are being a little bit smarter about it. They are not calling anything Work Choices. But, make no mistake, as pieces of legislation such as this come through their aim is to do the same thing. This is a government—the Abbott-Turnbull government—whose ideologically-driven crusades have unfairness at their very heart. This is a government who has repeatedly attacked those who can least afford it.

In Senator McKenzie's contribution, she paints a picture of the workplace as a level playing field. She knows that is not the case. She can come in here and paint this rosy picture, but that is not the case and every senator in this chamber knows that it is not the case. The impact of the measures in this bill would hit those in insecure employment—young people and women—the hardest. They will impact on the most vulnerable in the workplace—who are, as I have said, those who can least afford it—and at a time when we are seeing the lowest wage growth in decades. In fact, the ABS data for the June quarter shows that Australian wage growth remains at its slowest annual rate since the government started issuing data nearly two decades ago. The data shows that wages rose by 0.6 per cent in the June quarter while the annual pace of growth held steady at a record low of 2.3 per cent. This is not the wage growth explosion that we have heard Senator Abetz warn about but rather wages are now struggling to keep pace with increases in the cost of living. Any further attacks on workers' right and conditions, as we see proposed in this bill, will only place workers and their families under further financial pressure.

Before the last election, the government proposed amendments to the Fair Work Act, but they said they would not go any further. This is the crux of the issue that Senator McKenzie was talking about. The government did propose amendments previously but they also said they would not go any further than their pre-election promises. The government also said that they would implement specific recommendations directly from the 2012 Fair Work review. We know that they have gone back on their word, yet again, and that this bill breaks another promise. It is a broken promise to Australian workers. It was not what was promised before the election, no matter how many times the government come into this chamber and suggest that it is honouring a commitment that they gave before the election; it is not. It does go further than the government said it would and it does disadvantage workers. It breaks a promise that the government made when it said that it would implement recommendations from the 2012 Fair Work review, without change. The bill before us today goes much further than what was recommended by the 2012 Fair Work review. The government is going further than its pre-election promises in a number of areas, which include individual flexibility arrangements, greenfield agreements and right of entry. If this bill is enacted, it is clear that workers will suffer, that workers will be disadvantaged.

The bill before us today undercuts integral rights that lay at the very foundation of our industrial relations system. One of the most concerning elements of the bill is the government's proposed amendments to individual flexibility arrangements, also known as IFAs. It was Labor who introduced these individual flexibility arrangements in 2009. Labor introduced the IFA because we understand that flexible workplaces can be beneficial to both the workers and their employers. These arrangements can vary the terms of awards or enterprise agreements, but workers—and this is very important point—must not be worse off under the IFA. Labor know that the arrangements must not leave someone in a worse position.

When Labor introduced the individual flexibility arrangements, we protected low-paid workers and families who could least afford cuts to their household budgets. We ensured that there were adequate safeguards in the legislation. It can often be hard to successfully negotiate a win-win for both parties, but we know it is possible to change work arrangements and come up with a win for both the employee and the employer. Labor's Fair Work system was fair. I believe that it was fair and equitable for everyone. It was a win-win. It was a win for both employee and employer. It was working well in the majority of enterprise arrangements in Australia.

Under Labor, the individual flexibility arrangements could not be imposed on unsuspecting workers in a bid to take away their hard-won conditions, such as penalty rates. We know that the Liberals want to get rid of penalty rates for Australian workers. We know they it have on their agenda to cut the penalty rates of 4.5 million Australian workers. Those opposite are coming out of the woodwork and lining up to voice their views on cutting penalty rates.

Labor know that cutting penalty rates for hospitality workers, as Senator McGrath has called for, will be just this government's first step in attacking the take-home pay of nurses, paramedics, aged-care workers and cleaners, who all rely on penalty rates to pay their bills. Not only do we know that that is what this government is intent on doing but so do those workers. We know that if you are a worker who earns penalty rates then your take-home pay is under threat from Mr Turnbull.

I will now return to the bill. When it comes to workplace relations and this government, it is when you drill down into the detail of this bill that you realise just what is at stake. The government is unfairly proposing that a key safeguard be abandoned when it comes to what can be traded away through an individual flexibility arrangement. The relevant expert panel recommendation states that, if a non-monetary benefit is being traded for a monetary benefit, the value of the monetary benefit forgone must be 'relatively insignificant' and the value of the non-monetary benefit must be in 'proportion'.

Despite the expert panel's clear prescription, the words 'relatively insignificant' and 'proportion', which protect workers, are gone. They have sunk without a trace. You have to wonder why. We on this side know why. The full recommendation is missing, and that is a very worrying reflection of this government's approach to workplace relations. Labor are very worried. Labor do not regard it as reasonable for workers to trade away an important part of their take-home pay for a non-monetary benefit. That is not fair and it will make low-paid workers particularly vulnerable. We want the government to implement recommendation 9 of the expert panel in its entirety, as it promised. Otherwise, we must conclude that this is the first step to cutting penalty rates and allowances for Australian workers.

We know that some of the senators in the coalition have already advocated for—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

I am not sure what Senator Birmingham had to say there, but he is obviously a part of this Abbott-Turnbull government that is starting the process of cutting penalty rates. Perhaps he even supports it. We will see.

We know that the Liberals cannot be trusted to protect the wages and conditions of workers. They have shown over decades that they cannot be trusted. When they controlled both houses under Mr Howard, one of the first things they did was bring in Work Choices. The first chance they got, they said, 'Yippee! We are going to smash wages and conditions for workers.' So we know that the Liberals cannot be trusted to protect workers.

In fact, as I have said, undermining workers' conditions, rights and representation is at the heart of this government's ideological agenda. This is their real intention. They try to keep it under wraps, but they can only manage to do that for a period of time before it bursts out again. Two days into the Turnbull government and here it is, rearing its ugly head again.

This bill is not about implementing the recommendations of the expert panel. It is not about providing flexibility in the workplace, as they may say. It is about removing protections for workers. It is about the Turnbull government's plan to revive Work Choices.

The bill includes a requirement for employees to provide their employers with what has been mistakenly labelled as a 'genuine needs statement'. This statement is intended to capture an employee's state of mind at the time the IFA was agreed to. The government is trying to claim that this is a safeguard for employees, but what it really does is provide employers with a deferred defence to any future claim that they contravened a flexibility term in agreeing to an IFA. All the statement will do is provide additional protection for the employer where an employee might seek to take action against them.

As the ACTU wrote in their submission to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee:

Because each IFA will now include a testimonial from the worker about how it meets their needs and leaves them better off overall, employers are likely to rely on that testimonial to demonstrate their 'reasonable belief' for the purposes of the defence. A successful defence will result in no exposure to a penalty, and no requirement to remedy any underpayment.

Labor acknowledges that the Fair Work review panel did recommend that the act be amended to provide a defence to alleged contravention of flexibility, but the proposed amendment is not in the spirit of the recommendation. It is unfairly weighted to advantage employers.

Labor also has concerns about proposed amendments to the greenfield agreements. Labor is concerned that, under the proposed amendments, employers will basically be negotiating with themselves and setting terms and conditions themselves. The government believe the proposed amendments will improve the bargaining process for greenfield amendments by resolving impasses that come up from time to time. Labor opposes these amendments because the bargaining process will not be improved by simply removing one party—the unions—from the negotiating table.

If this bill is enacted, employers would be able to set the terms and conditions for prospective employees without those employees having a real say or a real voice. Employers can chose to negotiate with just one employee organisation at the workplace, even if another employee organisation represents the majority of the employees. Worse still, after an employer agrees to bargain with an employee organisation, the employer at any time could issue a notice to commence a three-month negotiation period. It is not a fixed process.

I am running out of time, but I would ask and urge—