Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am not surprised that Senator Lightfoot did not address any significant part of the Work Choices legislation or the intended or unintended consequences of this legislation. He, I suspect, like most people over there, is ignorant of the consequences. We heard the fanfare that accompanied the introduction and implementation of the Work Choices legislation on Monday. We heard over the last several months all the claims about one particular aspect of the Work Choices legislation—that is, the removal of the unfair dismissal laws. In fact, in Senate estimates Senator Abetz on the public record claimed that with the introduction of Work Choices and the consequential removal of unfair dismissal laws there would be an increase in employment of 78,000 overnight—the day after the introduction of Work Choices, 78,000, he said.

You can imagine my surprise when I woke up on Tuesday morning and read the papers. I expected to see headlines about an increase of 78,000 jobs. Of course, if it had happened the government would know. In the same Senate estimates hearing when Senator Abetz made those claims, the department was asked whether they had mechanisms and tools in place to capture that sudden jobs growth overnight. They assured us that they did, and I am sure that if there was such a jobs growth they would have passed that on to the government. They would have made that available to the press.

But there was no massive jobs growth and no overnight increase with the removal of unfair dismissals. Instead, we saw stories about workers being sacked. We saw headlines about workers being sacked and then offered casual jobs on lower rates and lesser conditions. We saw stories about workers sacked and replaced by workers that were employed the week before. We saw stories about workers being sacked for being too old. We saw stories about workers being sacked for being injured—injuries that occurred in the very workplace they were subsequently sacked from. We saw workers being sacked for simply being sick.

A case was brought to my attention this morning of a worker who was sick on Monday and Tuesday of this week—Monday was the introduction of Work Choices—and had a medical certificate. He advised his employer that he was unable to attend work for two days, that he had been to the doctor and that was on doctor’s advice. When he arrived at work today, he was told he had been dismissed. When he asked why his employment had been terminated, he was not given a reason and was then informed that no reason is required to be given. That is true. Under the present regime that is in place, there is no requirement to give a reason why you want to sack someone. In fact, it does not matter because there is no unfair dismissal protection whatsoever—unless in those very limited circumstances of discrimination—and there is no practical redress against unlawful termination either.

When we went through the Senate inquiry into the Work Choices bill, we explored this issue and, much to my amazement again, Senators Barnett and Troeth tried to defend the government’s position and said that workers would not be unfairly sacked. When Professor Peetz presented to the committee and gave an example of a worker potentially being sacked for simply chewing gum, the government senators said that was clearly untrue. We had Senator Barnett come into this place and say that Professor Peetz was wrong and that Senator Marshall had misrepresented the position of the department, but the department has confirmed that this is the case. Who else recently confirmed that it is the case? The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations himself.

The minister indicated quite openly and frankly on Lateline that there is no reason, apart from those narrow unlawful reasons, for a worker unfairly being sacked. You can sack people unfairly in this country under this regime. You can sack them because you do not like them. You can sack them because you might be in a bad mood that day. You can sack them for chewing gum. You can sack them simply because you want to sack them and replace them with other workers or, as we know—and the examples are coming out—you can sack them in order to replace them with people on lesser wages and conditions. You can sack them, as we know is the case and has been widely reported in the press, and then offer them the exact same job back on less wages and lesser conditions.

What response did we get when we explored these things and put them on the public record? The government attacked Professor Peetz personally. They deny that this is the intended consequences of their bill. The fact that you can sack someone unfairly also makes an absolute mockery— (Time expired)