Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In my previous life before I came to this place I worked for employer organisations and companies. I had the great privilege of working for a terrific trade union, the Health Services Union, for close to 18 years. The era in which I worked for employers was the pre Work Choices era. My experience was that, whilst we would have disagreements with unions from time to time on particular issues, we knew that we had a system in place whereby there was an independent umpire to whom we could go to have matters resolved. It was also a system in which we knew there was inherent fairness. It was one that we as employers could work through. Equally, in my years with the trade union, I found that while occasionally we would get the wrong decision from the independent umpire we were nonetheless happy to work within a system that included some resolution of disputes and recognised our rights to collectively bargain, represent employees and go about it in a businesslike way that gave the best representation and the best outcomes for fairness at the workplace—for the employer and, most particularly, for the employee.

I am more proud of my 18 to 19 years with the trade union movement than almost anything else I have done in my working life. When you look at the way in which the opposition, the then government, tried to portray union officials, you can see why we cannot believe that Work Choices is not out of their DNA. What they attempted to do was say that representing working people is a bad thing and that representing working people in some way damages the economy. I ask the question: how can looking after health workers, including aged care workers, and making sure that ambulance officers are not overworked possibly be seen as anything but laudable? Yet those on the other side would try to paint union officials as the devil incarnate that wreaks havoc on the economy. It is important to remember the campaign targeting union officials and where they stood with the Labor Party, because that is part of the psyche of the opposition. It personifies their approach to industrial relations. It did in the last election and it always will. It is something that the Australian people will continue to be reminded about by Labor because of the stance that the opposition took at the last election.

In looking after health workers, I had the great pleasure of making sure that those in aged-care facilities—over 80 per cent of whom were women working part time—were able to go to the bargaining table, sometimes with an employer the size of Macquarie Bank, with someone there who could provide them with resources to make sure that the bargaining was at least fair. Of course, all of that changed with Work Choices. With Work Choices we suddenly had an unequal bargaining relationship. We suddenly had the ability to make sure that these employees—predominantly women and predominantly women working part time—could be taken into the employer’s office one on one and be given a choice as to what their conditions would be or leave the company. This is the fundamental evil of Work Choices. It is the pinning together of individual contracts and the removal of unfair dismissal provisions that essentially make Work Choices such an imbalanced piece of legislation and one which, of course, was totally rejected by the Australian public. If you are presented with an individual contract and you have no rights if you are dismissed, then you are in no position to argue with the person putting that document before you. You have to either take it or take your chances.

I would like to mention two examples of people who were exploited in my electorate during the last campaign, which highlight the problems of Work Choices. One was a purported AWA that was so far out of whack that even under Work Choices it would have been illegal. What prevented any prosecution taking place was that the employee who was asked to sign this AWA knew that, if he raised the issue, if he put his hand up, he could be terminated. So, even though there were some provisions—not very good provisions—that said you could not go too far or go completely over the top, a bad employer had the green light from the former government to do whatever they liked, because if anyone complained they were out the door. This agreement involved a middle management position that paid only $26,000, and there was no on-call and no rostering of hours. It had the provision that the employee had to be available 24 hours, seven days a week and other hours as may be required. One wonders how you can actually work more than 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but this particular AWA had those provisions in it. Again, this would not have happened if we had had fair and balanced industrial laws. But, under Work Choices, the bad employer said, ‘We have got a green light to do what we want.’

Another example from my electorate was of a young lady who worked in the fast-food industry, in hospitality. She had traditionally been on a state award that had increments according to age. As she got older, her pay increased. That is a fairly common set of awards or agreements that exists in that industry. On her birthday, this young lady happened to get a phone call. She did not take the phone call, but the employer left a message on her phone saying: ‘Happy birthday. We no longer need you. Thank you for your service.’ She was being replaced by a younger worker. She did not need to be paid anything for this. They were making savings because they were able to do it. They did not need to provide a reason. They did not need to provide an excuse. This young woman had no recourse anywhere, because fairness had been taken out of our industrial relations system, and what was left was the exploitation of particular workers.

The third example is on the effect that Work Choices had on volunteers. Surf lifesaving is a big feature of the community on the Central Coast. To be available for surf lifesaving, you have to know that you are available on the weekend when you are rostered on. To do this, you need some certainty about when you are going to be rostered at work. One of the provisions that was able to be stripped away from many agreements and awards was the rostering provisions. In the area of health—a group that I used to represent—the need to have 24-hour-a-day rosters for workers was part and parcel of the industry. People understood that, but they also knew that when they had a roster they would be able to plan their lives around it. Under Work Choices this changed. As an active surf lifesaver myself, I can say that we often got complaints from other surf lifesavers about the effects of Work Choices on the number of volunteers for surf lifesaving. That was how deeply Work Choices affected people on the Central Coast and workers throughout Australia.

I started out by saying how we know that the opposition, in their hearts, still believe in Work Choices. We saw that in the advertisements in the last election and we have heard it in the speeches in this place. Whilst every speaker has said that in this place they will not be opposing legislation, they have nonetheless gone on to talk about their true beliefs and have exposed their support and continuing commitment to Work Choices and to its principles. In finishing, I would like to pay particular tribute to the Your Rights at Work campaign on the Central Coast and the work those people did in highlighting these unfair laws in my electorate. I also note the leadership that Mr Michael Williamson of the Health Services Union played in highlighting this issue for health workers throughout Australia.

We have now had two prime ministers who lost their jobs trying to rewrite industrial relations law. Let us hope the opposition learn the lesson. I do not think they have. We know from the speeches they have made here that they have not. What we are after, what this legislation is about, is a fair go for all and a balanced system that makes sure everyone gets an opportunity. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context