House debates
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 19), after subparagraph 326(2)(b)(i), insert:
(ia) did not commence that employment more than 14 days before the day on which the ITEA was made, and had previously been employed by the employer (not being employment that had ceased for the reason that, or for reasons that included the reason that, the employer would re-employ the person under an ITEA); or
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 24), after “workplace agreement is”, insert “, so far as the context permits,”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 31 and 32), omit “employee’s overall terms and conditions of employment”, substitute “overall terms and conditions of employment of the employee whose employment is subject to the agreement”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 4), after “employment of the employees”, insert “whose employment is subject to the agreement”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (after line 6), after subsection 346D(2), insert:
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2):
(a) a law of a State or Territory that:
(i) relates to long service leave; and
(ii) immediately before the agreement was lodged, applied to an employee referred to in that subsection, or would have applied to such an employee if he or she had been employed by the employer at that time;
is taken, to the extent that it provides for long service leave, to be a reference instrument relating to the employee; and
(b) if, apart from this subsection, the only reference instrument relating to the employee is a designated award for the employee—the designated award is to be disregarded to the extent (if any) that it provides for long service leave.
(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (after line 27), at the end of section 346D, add:
(8) To avoid doubt, if there is a reference instrument in relation to one or more, but not all, of the employees whose employment is subject to a collective agreement:
(a) in a case where the agreement passes the no-disadvantage test under subsection (2)—it passes the test in relation to all employees whose employment is subject to the agreement; or
(b) in a case where the agreement does not pass the no-disadvantage test under subsection (2)—it does not pass the test in relation to any employees whose employment is subject to the agreement.
(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (lines 6 to 25), omit subsection 346G(3).
(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph 346G(4)(c), substitute:
(c) must not be an award that regulates the terms and conditions of employment in a single business only (being the single business specified in the award).
(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (lines 14 to 18), omit subsection 346H(2), substitute:
(2) The Workplace Authority Director must determine that an award is a designated award for the employee or employees referred to in subsection (1), if the Workplace Authority Director is satisfied that:
(a) on the date of lodgment of the agreement or variation (as the case requires), the employee or employees are or would be employed in an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee or employees:
(i) are usually regulated by an award; or
(ii) would, but for a workplace agreement or another industrial instrument having come into operation, usually be regulated by an award; and
(b) there is an award that satisfies the requirements specified in subsection (3).
(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (lines 31 to 33), omit paragraph 346H(3)(c), substitute:
(c) must not be an award that regulates the terms and conditions of employment in a single business only (being the single business specified in the award).
(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (after line 37), after section 346H, insert:
346HA Effect of State awards etc.
For the purposes of paragraphs 346G(2)(a) and 346H(2)(a), an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by an employee are usually regulated by an award is taken to include an industry or occupation in which the terms and conditions of the kind of work performed or to be performed by the employee:
(a) were, immediately before the reform commencement, usually regulated by a State award, or would, but for an industrial instrument or a State employment agreement having come into operation, usually have been so regulated immediately before the reform commencement; or
(b) are usually regulated by any of the following instruments:
(i) a transitional Victorian reference award (within the meaning of Part 7 of Schedule 6);
(ii) a common rule in operation under Schedule 6;
(iii) a transitional award (within the meaning of Schedule 6) other than a Victorian reference award (within the meaning of that Schedule), to the extent that the award regulates excluded employers in respect of the employment of employees in Victoria;
or would, but for a workplace agreement or an industrial instrument having come into operation, usually be so regulated.
(12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 15 (lines 31 to 34), omit subsection 346N(2), substitute:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), Division 8 does not apply to the variation of an agreement, except for sections 367, 368, 368A, 372, 373 and 374, paragraph 377(1)(b) and section 380A.
(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 20 (lines 27 to 30), omit subsection 346W(5), substitute:
(5) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), Division 8 does not apply to the variation of an agreement, except for sections 367, 368, 368A, 372, 373 and 374, paragraph 377(1)(b) and section 380A.
(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 30 (line 23), after “section 346M,”, insert “346Q,”.
(15) Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 8), after item 4, insert:
4A Section 349
Before “An award”, insert “(1)”.
4B At the end of section 349
Add:
(2) Despite subsection (1), if:
(a) a person’s employment is subject to a workplace agreement; and
(b) but for the workplace agreement, an award would have effect in relation to the person’s employment;
the terms of the award have effect to the extent that they are about outworker conditions, despite any terms of the workplace agreement that provide, in a particular respect, a less favourable outcome for that person.
(3) In this section:
outworker means an employee who, for the purposes of the business of the employer, performs work at private residential premises or at other premises that are not business or commercial premises of the employer.
outworker conditions means conditions (other than pay) for outworkers, but only to the extent necessary to ensure that their overall conditions of employment are fair and reasonable in comparison with the conditions of employment specified in a relevant award or awards for employees who perform the same kind of work at an employer’s business or commercial premises.
(16) Schedule 1, item 15, page 39 (line 10), omit paragraph 2(2)(b).
(17) Schedule 1, item 15, page 40 (after line 3), after subclause 3(1), insert:
(1A) However, paragraph 405(1)(e) of the pre-transition Act continues to apply in relation to a person whose appointment has ceased to have effect under subclause (1), as if the person continues to be a bargaining agent.
(18) Schedule 1, item 15, page 41 (line 24), omit “the 14 day period referred to in section 342”, substitute “a period of 14 days after the commencement of this Schedule”.
(19) Schedule 1, item 15, page 41 (lines 33 and 34), omit “the 14 day period referred to in section 375”, substitute “a period of 14 days after the commencement of this Schedule”.
(20) Schedule 1, item 15, page 42 (after line 13), after paragraph 8(1)(a), insert:
(aa) paragraph 336(b);
(21) Schedule 1, item 15, page 43 (after line 20), after paragraph 2(1)(c), insert:
(ca) subsections 347(1) and (2);
(22) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 44 (after line 15), at the end of the Part, add:
15A Effect of repeal of section 399
(1) To avoid doubt, if, immediately before the commencement of this item, an industrial instrument had no effect because of the operation of section 399 of the pre-transition Act, the repeal of that section by this Act:
(a) does not cause the instrument to have effect after that commencement; and
(b) does not cause any protected award condition to cease to have effect.
(2) In this item:
industrial instrument means an instrument mentioned in subsection 399(3) of the pre-transition Act, and includes any of the following (except to the extent that they contain protected award conditions):
(a) a common rule within the meaning of clause 89 of Schedule 6;
(b) a transitional Victorian reference award within the meaning of Part 7 of that Schedule;
(c) a transitional award within the meaning of that Schedule, to the extent that subclause 102(1) of that Schedule applies to it.
pre-transition Act means the Workplace Relations Act 1996 as in force immediately before the commencement of this item.
protected award condition has the meaning it had for the purposes of section 354 of the pre-transition Act.
(23) Schedule 1, item 48, page 50 (line 22), omit “section 346W (which deals”, substitute “section 346N or 346W (which deal”.
(24) Schedule 1, item 67, page 53 (line 33) to page 54 (line 1), omit the item, substitute:
67 Paragraphs 390(2)(b) and 392(2)(ba) and (c)
Omit “AWA”, substitute “ITEA”.
(25) Schedule 1, item 159, page 71 (lines 1 to 3), omit the item, substitute:
159 At the end of subclause 89(1) of Schedule 6
Add:
; and (c) section 349 of the pre-transition Act as it applies because of clause 2 of Schedule 7A; and
(d) section 354 of the pre-transition Act as it applies because of clause 2 of Schedule 7A and clause 2 of Schedule 7B.
(26) Schedule 1, item 165, page 71 (lines 19 to 21), omit the item, substitute:
165 At the end of subclause 95(1) of Schedule 6
Add:
; and (c) section 349 of the pre-transition Act as it applies because of clause 2 of Schedule 7A; and
(d) section 354 of the pre-transition Act as it applies because of clause 2 of Schedule 7A and clause 2 of Schedule 7B.
(27) Schedule 1, item 171, page 72 (lines 9 to 11), omit the item, substitute:
171 At the end of subclause 102(1) of Schedule 6
Add:
; and (c) section 349 of the pre-transition Act as it applies because of clause 2 of Schedule 7A; and
(d) section 354 of the pre-transition Act as it applies because of clause 2 of Schedule 7A and clause 2 of Schedule 7B.
(28) Schedule 1, page 74 (after line 15), after item 191, insert:
191A After paragraph 20(a) of Schedule 7
Insert:
(aa) section 327;
(ab) paragraph 336(b);
(ac) paragraph 340(2)(a);
(ad) paragraph 367(1)(b);
(ae) subparagraph 369(b)(ii);
(af) subparagraph 373(2)(a)(ii);
(ag) subparagraph 467(1)(a)(iii);
(ah) subparagraph 467(1)(b)(ii);
(29) Schedule 1, page 76 (after line 21), after item 210, insert:
210A After subclause 15G(1) of Schedule 8
Insert:
(1A) If, after the commencement of this subclause, a preserved individual State agreement ceases to operate in relation to an employee because of subclause (1):
(a) any preserved collective State agreement binding the employer; or
(b) if there is no such preserved collective State agreement—any notional agreement preserving State awards that would have been taken to come into operation in relation to the employer and employee on the reform commencement but for the preserved individual State agreement;
has effect in relation to the employer and employee.
(1B) If, after the commencement of this subclause, a preserved collective State agreement ceases to operate in relation to an employee because of subclause (1), any notional agreement preserving State awards that would have been taken to come into operation in relation to the employer and employee on the reform commencement but for the preserved collective State agreement has effect in relation to the employer and employee.
(1C) However, subsection (1A) or (1B) ceases to apply if an award or a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employer and employee.
(30) Schedule 1, page 78 (after line 23), after item 228, insert:
228A Subclause 26(1) of Schedule 8
Omit “workplace agreement” (first occurring), substitute “pre-transition workplace agreement”.
228B Subclause 26(1) of Schedule 8
After “section 355”, insert “of the pre-transition Act”.
228C At the end of subclause 26(1) of Schedule 8
Add “for the purposes of that Act”.
228D Subclause 26(2) of Schedule 8
After “subsection 355(6)”, insert “of the pre-transition Act”.
228E Subclause 26(2) of Schedule 8
Omit “workplace agreement”, substitute “pre-transition workplace agreement”.
(31) Schedule 1, page 79 (after line 28), after item 237, insert:
237A Subclause 52A(1) of Schedule 8
Omit “workplace agreement” (first occurring), substitute “pre-transition workplace agreement”.
237B Subclause 52A(1) of Schedule 8
After “section 355”, insert “of the pre-transition Act”.
237C At the end of subclause 52A(1) of Schedule 8
Add “for the purposes of that Act”.
237D Subclause 52A(2) of Schedule 8
After “subsection 355(6)”, insert “of the pre-transition Act”.
237E Subclause 52A(2) of Schedule 8
Omit “workplace agreement”, substitute “pre-transition workplace agreement”.
(32) Schedule 2, item 9, page 96 (lines 23 to 30), omit section 576K, substitute:
576K Terms providing for outworkers
(1) In this section:
outworker means:
(a) an employee who, for the purposes of the business of the employer, performs work at private residential premises or at other premises that are not business or commercial premises of the employer; or
(b) an individual who is a party to a contract for services, and who, for the purposes of the contract, performs work:
(i) in the textile, clothing or footwear industry; and
(ii) at private residential premises or at other premises that are not business or commercial premises of the other party to the contract or (if there are 2 or more other parties to the contract) of any of the other parties to the contract.
(2) A modern award may include either or both of the following:
(a) terms relating to the conditions under which an employer may employ employees who are outworkers (including terms relating to the pay or conditions of the outworkers);
(b) terms relating to the conditions under which an eligible entity (within the meaning of Division 4) may arrange for work to be carried out for the entity (either directly or indirectly) by outworkers (including terms relating to the pay or conditions of the outworkers).
Note: In paragraph (2)(a), employee and employer have the meanings given by subsections 5(1) and 6(1).
(33) Schedule 2, item 9, page 100 (lines 17 to 19), omit the definition of enterprise award in section 576U, substitute:
enterprise award means an award that regulates the terms and conditions of employment in a single business only (being the single business specified in the award).
(34) Schedule 2, item 9, page 100 (line 21), omit “the matter”, substitute “a matter”.
(35) Schedule 2, page 104 (after line 22), after item 9, insert:
9A After paragraph 2(2)(s) of Schedule 2
Insert:
(sa) subsection 576K(1), definition of outworker;
9B At the end of subclause 3(2) of Schedule 2
Add:
; (j) subsection 576K(1), definition of outworker.
(36) Schedule 5, item 6, page 119 (line 18), omit “termination”, substitute “agreement”.
(37) Page 119 (after line 19), after Schedule 5, insert:
Schedule 5A—Transitional treatment of State employment agreements
Workplace Relations Act 1996
1 After clause 16 of Schedule 8
Insert:
16A Commission may extend or vary preserved collective State agreements
(1) The Commission may, on application by any person bound by a preserved collective State agreement, by order:
(a) extend the nominal expiry date of the agreement; or
(b) vary the terms of the agreement.
(2) However, before making the order, the Commission must be satisfied that:
(a) all parties bound by the agreement genuinely agree to the extension or variation; and
(b) none of the parties have, after the introduction day:
(i) organised or engaged in, or threatened to organise or engage in, industrial action in relation to another party to the agreement; or
(ii) applied for a protected action ballot under section 451 in relation to proposed industrial action; and
(c) in the case of a variation—the agreement as varied would not result, on balance, in a reduction in the overall terms and conditions of employment of the employees bound by the agreement under:
(i) any relevant State award in relation to the employees; and
(ii) any law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, that the Commission considers relevant.
(3) If the Commission extends the nominal expiry date of the agreement, the extended date cannot be more than 3 years after the date on which the order is made.
(4) The employees bound by the agreement are taken, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), genuinely to agree to the extension or variation if:
(a) the employer gives all of the employees bound by the agreement at the time of making the extension or variation a reasonable opportunity genuinely to decide whether they agree to the extension or variation; and
(b) either:
(i) if the decision is made by a vote—a majority of those employees who cast a valid vote; or
(ii) otherwise—a majority of those employees;
genuinely decide that they agree to the extension or variation.
(5) To avoid doubt, the terms and conditions of employment under a relevant State award may, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), include terms and conditions that did not apply on the reform commencement, or that have been varied since the reform commencement.
(6) In this clause:
introduction day means the day on which the Bill that became the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Act 2008 was introduced into the House of Representatives.
relevant State award, in relation to an employee, means:
(a) if, immediately before the reform commencement, the employee was bound by, or a party to, the original collective agreement to which the preserved collective State agreement referred to in subsection (1) relates, under the terms of that agreement or a State or Territory industrial law as in force at that time—the State award that would have bound the employee at that time but for that agreement; or
(b) otherwise—the State award that would have bound, or but for the application of a State employment agreement would have bound, the employee at that time if the employee had been employed by the employer at that time.
2 After clause 21E of Schedule 8
Insert:
Division 5A—Coercion
3 After subclause 22(1) of Schedule 8
Insert:
(1A) A person must not:
11:20 am
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The government has moved amendments to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. The government brought this bill to the House having worked extensively over January with the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council and its subset organisation, the Committee on Industrial Legislation. This was a consultative and collaborative process which had been shunned by the former government. The former government refused to acknowledge that there may be views and assistance available from stakeholders. We took a very different approach. The bill was drafted quickly because we wanted to honour our commitment to the Australian people to end Australian workplace agreement making as soon as possible. As the bill has made its way through the parliament and through the process of the Senate inquiry—which we supported, provided it was conducted in a timely fashion—it has become apparent in discussions with stakeholders that it is convenient to amend the bill in a number of respects.
The amendments before the House today are in four categories. There are a number of amendments which are strictly technical in nature. There are some amendments to clarify the full range of protection for outworkers. There are some amendments to clarify that the long service leave entitlements of employees stemming from state law will be taken into account for the purpose of the no disadvantage test. There are some amendments to ensure that if an employer was using Australian workplace agreements in December last year and they seek to engage an employee who has formerly worked for them, then they will be able to offer them an interim transitional employment agreement. The government had considered this question earlier. We were concerned that, without a robust anti-avoidance provision, there was some possibility that a provision of this nature could be used by the very occasional employer to terminate people in order to re-engage them on ITEAs. We obviously did not want that effect. We have looked at the question, and I am now satisfied we have been able to draft a sufficiently robust anti-avoidance provision. We have dealt with the question in those circumstances.
Regarding the amendments, they have improved and strengthened the bill, which clearly brings to the parliament and brings to the Australian people our promises to end Australian workplace agreement making. Of course, I anticipate that the opposition will say, in respect of the amendments, that they are an indication that the government needed to amend the bill. I would counsel the opposition, if it is going to make those points, that the number of government amendments that the government is making to this bill is smaller than the number of government amendments made by the former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations when he brought to this House the so-called fairness test. On that occasion, of course, the government moved 44 government amendments. That is greater than the number of government amendments moved on this occasion, which are 37 in number. I am satisfied that this has strengthened the bill. It has brought to the parliament a bill that implements the government’s policy. I commend it to the House.
11:24 am
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This must be a humiliating backdown for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. On Tuesday, in a highly dismissive manner—in the high-handed, arrogant manner that is becoming a hallmark of this government—the minister accused me of ‘content-less filibuster’, as I sought to point out the flaws, the inadequacies and the complexities in the government’s Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008. But oh, no—the minister would have none of it. Thirty-seven amendments later, the inconsistencies, the inadequacies and the complexities have been exposed for all to see. I pointed out to the minister the significant problems that the mining and construction sector faced because of uncertainty over employees on AWAs. I asked what would happen to those workers under Labor’s laws. Given the project-by-project basis of employment in these sectors and the evidence from the Senate inquiry—and it took the coalition to force a Senate inquiry—I took the minister to that precise evidence from the construction and mining sector. She just dismissed it out of hand.
It is clear that there would be workers under Labor’s proposed laws who would not be able to be re-employed under an AWA, could not then be employed under one of Labor’s individual contracts and then would have to fall back on the awards. If there were no applicable award, they would have to fall back to the minimum wage and the National Employment Standards. That is the position that the Labor government presented as its legislation, and that is the position that the Senate inquiry’s dissenting report said was untenable. In relation to the Senate report: isn’t it an interesting fact that the majority report from the Labor senators contained all of the evidence about the inconsistencies, the complexities and the uncertainties but made not one recommendation to amend the bill? Obviously, somebody has pulled someone else into line—somebody has overridden the minister’s high-handed attitude towards this bill. There were workers in the construction and mining sector who would have been left in an abyss, according to the evidence, but the minister just dismissed my concerns—dismissed them out of hand. The government has now backed down and moved amendments to address the very issues that were so arrogantly dismissed in this place.
The government’s amendments on interim individual contracts now present the following regime. We have a new individual contract introduced by Labor. We now have the situation where the cohort of workers to whom these new Labor individual contracts can be offered has been extended to workers who would not previously have been able to access them, so we have had an extension of the range of employees that can be offered Labor’s individual contracts. We know, through the evidence given at the inquiry and the minister’s admissions in this House, that not only can existing AWAs exist indefinitely but also there are now new, broadened, enhanced individual contracts that can continue indefinitely. If the employee and employer are happy with the terms and conditions of such a contract, they can extend its life indefinitely. It is not true, as Labor keeps suggesting, that there will be no individual statutory agreements in Australian workplaces after 2010 or even 2012—they can go on indefinitely. If these agreements are so evil, as the minister keeps contending, why is Labor introducing its own individual contracts and, through these amendments, extending their reach? Because it knows that choice and flexibility in the workplace have led to greater employment opportunities and greater productivity and respond to the needs and circumstances of 21st century workplaces. Why else is Labor introducing its own individual contract, enhancing that contract’s reach and ensuring that it can continue indefinitely?
In one of the most extraordinary developments in the Senate last night, the Labor senators voted to retain the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws. Labor senators voted to retain the status quo. In other words, Labor wants to hold on to the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws. They were given an opportunity by the Democrats to roll back the unfair dismissal laws that the minister says present an opportunity for employers to dismiss workers. (Time expired)
11:29 am
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 marks a major day for working families right across Australia. Today we declare Australian workplace agreements to be dead and buried. Today we declare this shameful chapter in the history of Australia’s workplace relations to be dead and buried. And today, with this legislation, we begin the process of burying the rest of the Work Choices omnibus once and for all. With this legislation we take the first step towards the creation of a modern, fair and flexible workplace relations system.
The government was elected on a commitment to abolish AWAs. Today the government honours that commitment. There will be no more AWAs. Basic conditions will never again be stripped away from working families without a dollar of compensation, and a genuine safety net is agreed. I am especially proud today that the members of the parliamentary Labor Party are here to support the passage of this legislation through the parliament. Support in the parliament through the debate came from the member for Bennelong, the member for Blair, the member for Bonner, the member for Braddon, the member for Corangamite, the member for Dawson, the member for Deakin and the members for Dobell, Eden-Monaro, Forde, Hasluck, Kingston, Leichhardt, Lindsay, Longman, Macquarie, Makin, Moreton, Page, Petrie, Robertson, Solomon and Wakefield. Why are they here? They are here because the previous members for those seats failed one simple test—to stand up with courage in defence of the interests of working families. They were prepared to sacrifice the wellbeing of working families under financial pressure to their ideological approach to industrial relations, which would shred the most basic protections which working families expect of this parliament. The previous members who represented those seats would now simply rue the day that they stood in this place and backed Work Choices legislation, because Work Choices was not explained to the Australian people prior to the previous election. They got control of the House of Representatives and control of the Senate, and off they went in pursuit of their ideological folly. And they have paid the price for so doing.
Australians in all these electorates and all around the country have sent us here to pass this law and to end the unfairness of AWAs that require longer working hours and pay less per hour than collective agreements; that in their thousands and tens of thousands have taken hundreds of thousands out of the pay packets of working men and women; that took away rest breaks, penalty rates, overtime pay and shift loadings; and that, according to the Bureau of Statistics, on average compared to collective agreements took $87 per week out of the pay packets of women.
Today is just the first step towards a modern workplace relations system that is consistent with core Australian values. The good news for Australians working in shops, hotels, offices, restaurants, nursing homes and other workplaces all over Australia is that AWAs are now dead and buried. This is good news, not just for these working Australians but for their husbands, wives and kids and for working families right across Australia. This is good news for the hardworking Australians who have built a strong economy and who have the right to expect that a strong economy will deliver for all Australians, not just for some. This goes to the heart of the Australian Labor Party’s DNA. This is the Labor way; this is the Australian way—having fairness in the workplace; rewarding hard work, achievement and success; and valuing Australian working families on the way through. With this bill we deliver exactly what we promised prior to the last election—to give a decent and fair go to all working families under financial pressure throughout Australia, not just to some of them. This bill was the first order of business for this Australian government. That is why the first bill that this government has introduced into the House deals with these important matters for working families. That is why we on this side of the parliament stand with pride, having brought this legislation to this parliament and ensured its passage despite the extraordinary backflips that we have seen on the part of those opposite. I commend this bill to the House.
11:34 am
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have a very simple question for this Prime Minister: will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker will be worse off under Labor’s industrial relations laws? Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker will be worse off under Labor’s industrial relations regime? The Prime Minister will not answer that question. The Prime Minister will deliberately avoid fronting the Australian public and admitting that workers will be worse off under these industrial relations laws. Three times in the Senate last night Senator Wong, the minister’s representative in the Senate, was asked the very simple question: will workers be worse off under Labor’s industrial relations laws? Are you tired, Prime Minister? Are you finding this tedious?
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will refer her remarks through the chair.
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The fact is that the minister has refused to give precisely the guarantee that Labor insisted John Howard give. It is precisely the same question, and no-one on the Labor front bench—not the Prime Minister, not the minister and not her representative in the Senate—will come clean and admit to the Australian public who is going to be worse off under these industrial relations laws. They have done no economic modelling. They have done no analysis at all of the impact on unemployment. The Australian people need to understand the fraud that has been exposed by the 37 amendments that have now been moved by the government to their own legislation. The minister so dismissively said the bill was going to be delivered in full and in whole—but, no, that is not the case 37 amendments later. The fraud that has been exposed is that Labor have not delivered what they promised. Labor are keeping individual statutory contracts. You can call them what you like. They are keeping individual statutory contracts under these amendments. They have broadened the reach of those contracts so that more workers can be offered individual contracts—not fewer. This is not what you went to the election with. They voted last night to retain the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws—an extraordinary outcome. The minister had been going on in this House saying, ‘Employers just want to sack good workers for no reason.’ Those were her words. What an extraordinary statement, as if good workers can be sacked for no reason. She is suggesting, and demonising employers around the country—
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
She is nodding. The minister is at the table and nodding that she says employers around this country are scouring their workplaces to find good workers to sack for no reason. They are your words, Minister. No wonder business confidence in the government’s policies has collapsed. When you have a minister who attacks business relentlessly and says they are scouring the workplaces for good workers to sack, we know that the Labor Party’s industrial relations regime is in disarray. Why else would they vote to retain the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws? If the minister will not come to the table and admit that workers will be worse off, why is it that they voted last night to retain—
Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Gillard interjecting
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Why are you rolling your eyes? You admitted last night that the Work Choices industrial relations laws should remain. If the Labor Party are so concerned about the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws, when they had the opportunity to support the Democrats one-page amendment that took out 100 and put in 15—that is how simple it is—why did the Labor senators vote to retain it? What we have seen today are 37 amendments. This is not the legislation that Labor promised the Australian public they would introduce. They have listened to the concerns of the Senate inquiry, for which I am grateful, but the high-handed, dismissive attitude of this government is here for everyone to see. They have not got rid of individual contracts; they are extending them. They have voted to maintain the Work Choices unfair dismissal laws. Labor’s industrial relations policy is a fraud on the Australian public. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.