- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 1 March 2005
Penalty Rates
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 20 of 38
| Next Item »
Page: 14324
Urgent Motion
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [3.36 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) expresses its concern about a call by Employers First to cut weekend penalty rates for a number of sectors:
(2) notes the Leader of the Opposition's refusal to state a position; and
(3) calls on the Leader of the Opposition to express his support for the successful and co-operative New South Wales industrial relations system.
In the months since the last Federal election we have witnessed the Federal Coalition Government position itself to take over the co-operative, stable and efficient State industrial relations system. One of these, of course, is New South Wales; a system that has consistently and even-handedly responded to the needs of employers and employees over 100 years. We have seen the Federal Government move to replace the New South Wales system with one that encourages unfair, unscrutinised individual contracts, a reduction in long- held worker entitlements, and, perhaps most importantly, the erosion of job security.
The Federal Government wants to cut wages and conditions and remove job security in the name of flexibility—for "flexibility" read low wages, no penalty rates and a job that can be terminated whenever the employer wishes. I wonder what the Opposition's view is on this. It is on the public record that a range of employer bodies, among them the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has lobbied the Federal Government with views on what the industrial landscape should look like in the next part of this century.
These views amount to an environment where employers have all the power at the bargaining table and where employees are offered jobs on a take it or leave it basis. Employees will work harder and harder over longer hours, they will be subject to unsociable work rosters, and they cannot complain for fear of instant dismissal. Employees who work for a business with less than 20 employees can be sacked without even knowing why they are being sacked. Employees will simply have nowhere to go. In the context of this sustained attack on the Australian tradition of a fair go for all, the Leader of the Opposition has been silent. He has refused to indicate to the people of New South Wales whether he supports throwing the vast majority of this State's employees into a Federal system, a system where employees cannot get a fair go; where if they complain they can get the sack; where employees either accept an individual contract or they do not get the job; where families will simply be worse off.
I wonder where the Leader of the Opposition stands on these issues. We received a clue during a 20 February interview on radio 2UE. During that interview the Leader of the Opposition had a great opportunity to signal where he stands on industrial relations. He had the opportunity to give the New South Wales public a clear indication of whether he supports wage cuts to the many thousands of employees who would be affected by the Employers First application to reduce penalty rates for those who work outside the normal working hours. Let us look at why we have penalty rates.
Shift loadings and penalty rates for work in ordinary time on weekends and work outside the normal span of hours are intended to compensate for the inconvenience associated with working unsociable hours. Work after 5.30 p.m. is generally regarded as being in unsociable hours, and has a negative impact on both personal and family wellbeing. With a higher female participation in the work force, the pressures on family interaction are now greater. For individuals this pressure has increased with more work being performed during unsociable hours.
There has not been a significant increase in the incidence of work being performed after 6.00 p.m. by clerical workers. I refer to the Clerical and Administration Employees (State) Award, which Employers First is seeking to amend. This award covers 350,000 employees, of whom 20 per cent or 70,000 work on weekends. I give my sincerest thanks to the Australian Services Union official industrial officer, Holger Mette, who supplied me with information on this matter. The argument that minimum award conditions must be reduced to lower costs is unsustainable. The current 12-hour span of ordinary hours in the award is as broad as any other State or Federal clerical administrative award, and is the result of structural efficiency changes, which on 30 May 1987 increased from 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. to 7.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., and on 26 February 1991 from 7.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.
Employers have already made significant changes to their workplaces. Industry practice shows that most employers pay substantially above the minimum award rates and accept that Saturdays and Sundays are not normal working days. Employees are less inclined to work on Saturdays and Sundays because they are dominant days for sport, leisure, community activities and religious celebrations. Time off during the week does not compensate for time lost on Saturdays and Sundays. This is the reason workplace arrangements have always recognised and endorsed penalty rates in the form of higher hourly payments for these days. Working unsociable hours interferes with family and personal commitments and has a negative impact on family relations, family and individual wellbeing.
Overall, there has been a slight decline in the incidence of work performed on Saturdays. Where there is a statistical increase in Sunday work in the overall work force, this is not significant and is consistent with the extension of trading hours in the retail sector. Instead, the Leader of the Opposition said in his interview that he did not know whether he supported the cut in wages for those who work on weekends. He did not know whether workers deserve anything extra for missing out on their kids' sporting activities, community functions, or spending time with their families on weekends. The Leader of the Opposition did not have an opinion on whether those who work on weekends deserve a little extra pay during these hours. He has not yet bothered to turn his mind to this question.
On the day of the interview the Leader of the Opposition was looking forward to a pleasant Sunday afternoon shopping for some furniture. While he was thinking about how to spend his money, the workers who would be serving him were hard at work earning money. They had given up time with their family and their community in order to pay their mortgages, bills and school fees. All they can look forward to now is an increase in interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition was asked a very simple question by Murray Olds during the radio interview: whether he would support Employers First in its application to cut the wages of people who work on weekends and during other non-traditional working hours. He did not give an answer. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to take a policy position on whether a whole range of employees such as shop assistants, medical receptionists, and hospitality workers, to name a few, should have their wages cut.
Members on this side of the House believe the answer is simple: Stop trying to rip off workers. I note that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been running a reasonable hours campaign. Australian workers now work the second highest number of hours in the world. Workers should be compensated for the hours they work, particularly those outside ordinary working hours. A report commissioned by the United Services Union and prepared by Graeme Russell, Phd, Associate Professor in Psychology at Macquarie University, notes that women are overrepresented in the services and retail sectors, where the expansion of unsociable hours has been the greatest.
The probability of visiting entertainment or cultural venues is five times more likely on a Sunday than on a Monday, and attending a sporting event is three times more likely on a Sunday than during the week. This is why the accepted principle is that people required to work outside what are considered ordinary hours should be paid penalty rates or shift loadings. It should be noted that not all employer associations support Employers First. Australian Business Industrial and Australian Industry Group, which represents the majority of employers, disagrees with Employers First, so we have division amongst the employer associations.
I note that the Australian Medical Association supports Employers First. Interestingly, from 1 January 2005 doctors have received from the Federal Government an extra $10 per consultation for after-hours work, yet they do not recognise that their administrative staff also deserve extra money for those extra hours. The approach by Employers First, pushed by the Federal Government, which is keen to punish employees and families, is dangerous. It pits worker against worker and seeks to weaken the role that the independent umpire plays in reviewing awards and enterprise agreements and in arbitrating industrial disputes.
As a former officer of the New South Wales Nurses Association I am horrified at the implication of this application, which could spread to other industries. Penalty rates are applied widely in the nursing industry because it provides a 24-hour service. I do not believe that this measure will stop with clerical workers; it will be imposed on other industries, making it extremely difficult for workers to be recruited for essential services. A further key Federal approach involves removing the role of the Industrial Relations Commission in reviewing and setting minimum wages. Awards and wages will be stripped back to minimum and workers will be forced into individual contracts. As well, penalty rates or benefits will be removed from workers who are prepared to work at times when many cannot or will not do so.
I remind the House that the New South Wales industrial system delivered the Sydney 2000 Olympics on time and on budget. This was possible because the system places great emphasis on bringing industrial parties together through consultation. Efficiencies were delivered to Olympic contractors while employees were assured of fair wages and conditions. Victoria, which has the Federal system, has the highest rate of disputation and is responsible for 91 per cent of employer lockouts. As a result, it is 20 per cent to 30 per cent more expensive to produce goods in Victoria. I commend the motion to the House. It is important that the people of New South Wales and all members of this Parliament hear the views of the Leader of the Opposition on key industrial relations questions.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.46 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead the following words:
"this House:
(1) condemns the failure of the Government to support increased productivity in New South Wales through an updated industrial relations system; and
(2) further condemns the failure of the Government to address industrial rorts and misbehaviour, especially in the building industry."
The contribution from the one-term member for Drummoyne is typical of the high-on-rhetoric, low-on-substance material we have come to experience in Labor's approach to industrial relations in New South Wales. There is a continued outpouring of excited rhetoric from the Premier and the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. John Della Bosca, about the Federal Government's proposals but no sound constructive proposal by them for a co-operative national system. For example, if they do not like the fact that the Federal Government is taking over industrial relations, they should seek the same co-operative system between all States that is used for company law.
The New South Wales Government has options available but it is only concerned with spin, not substance. It is pleasing to see the usual array of trade union hacks participating in this debate—the honourable member for Wollongong, who was sent here by the Liquor Trades Union; the honourable member for Drummoyne, who was sent here by her brother-in-law, and other members who were sent here by their little left-wing factions. However, the honourable member for Drummoyne deserves special mention because she is typical of those who move such motions: high on rhetoric, low on substance.
Ms Angela D'Amore: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. If the honourable member for Gosford knew what he was talking about, he would speak to the substance of the debate rather than attack members opposite. He should use his brain and stick to the issues rather than attack women on the Governments benches.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford will speak to the leave of the motion.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The very last words the honourable member for Drummoyne said were, "low on substance". That is exactly what she is. She is low on substance because her total contribution to industrial relations was to undertake a simulated nursing course in order to advance her political career by becoming an industrial relations advocate.
Ms Angela D'Amore: I was an industrial relations officer.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member says she was an industrial relations officer. She was put in her phoney job by her factional mates to get political advancement, and everybody knows it.
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: My point of order is one of relevance. I thought the honourable member for Gosford would address his amendment, rather than make personal attacks on Government members. I respectfully request that he be directed to return to talking about the substance of his amendment.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the honourable member for Gosford will return to the substance of the debate. I remind him that the standing orders provide that if he wishes to make a personal attack on another member he should do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: It was factual; it was not personal. Notwithstanding that—and it stands on the record as an accurate statement of where the honourable member for Drummoyne is coming from—let us look at the ALP's record. The Labor Party complained about thousands of workers having to work on weekends. If that is the case, and if the Labor Party is prepared to pass special legislation every four years for the shop assistants union to make Boxing Day a public holiday, why has it not done anything about the thousands of shop assistants who must work on weekends, which we have been told is terrible?
The Labor Party should have the courage to make it clear to the community that it is opposed to shops being open on weekends and let the community decide whether it thinks shops should be open on weekends. The contribution of the honourable member for Drummoyne was high on rhetoric. She was supported by her new-found factional colleague, the honourable member for Wollongong, who started with the extreme left, then flirted with the moderate left and now finds herself on the right. I bet she is confused as to what factional meeting she should be attending on any one day.
Ms Noreen Hay: I go to all of them.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Wollongong says she attends all of them.
Ms Angela D'Amore: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. Government members would like to hear whether the honourable member for Gosford supports penalty rates for people who work outside ordinary hours. We would also like to hear about his amendment so we can debate it. There is nothing in what he has put on the record so far for us to debate.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the honourable member for Gosford intend to address his amendment?
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I am addressing it.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the honourable member dealt with the specifics of the amendment, we may be able to continue the debate.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: My amendment has been well addressed. I am simply responding to interjections from members opposite. I have not yet referred to the honourable member for Camden. The workers of this State need to increase productivity if the New South Wales economy is to grow. Of course, productivity is increased through an effective industrial relations system. I am surprised that paragraph (1) of the motion moved by the honourable member for Drummoyne anticipates a decision by the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC]. The commission has before it an application by Employers First. It is appropriate that trade unions and employer bodies make applications to the IRC. Yet this motion is a heavy-handed attempt by the Australian Labor Party to tell the IRC how to behave.
We have more respect for the Industrial Relations Commission and its judges than the Labor Party. We are not prepared to tell the IRC how it should find in a particular case, but that is what the ALP is doing with this motion. The ALP is trying to send a signal to the Industrial Relations Commission that it opposes an application presently before the commission. I place on record my respect for the President of the Industrial Relations Commission and the respect of a political organisation for the independence of the IRC. I condemn the Australian Labor Party for its attempt to intimidate and undermine the Industrial Relations Commission and the industrial relations system in this State.
My amendment deals with two aspects. The first is how we need an effective, updated industrial relations system if productivity is to increase. The second is the Labor Party's failure to deal with ongoing rorts in the building industry. They have been exposed in two royal commissions, the most recent being the Cole royal commission, conducted by the Federal Government, which showed widespread and blatant rorting across the building industry. Yet there has been no comment on it or response by the Australian Labor Party—nothing at all about a royal commission that followed the royal commission established by the Greiner Government back in the early 1990s. When Labor took office in 1995 all it did about the royal commission into rorts in the building industry was to dissolve the building industry task force. That was Labor's contribution to an industry that a royal commission found to be full of rorts, corruption and incompetence. I am glad to debate the motion moved by the honourable member for Drummoyne. [Time expired.]
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [3.56 p.m.]: The amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford is completely unacceptable. I am surprised he had the gall to move it, because it is far removed from reality. Over the past 10 years New South Wales workers have increased productivity substantially. I do not intend to deal with the honourable member's amendment; I would rather deal with the motion moved by the honourable member for Drummoyne, which I support. Honourable members may be aware that Employers First has applied to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to vary the Clerical and Administrative Employees (State) Award to expand the ordinary working hours of clerical and administrative workers.
The employer's application seeks to expand the span of ordinary hours from 6.00 a.m. until 7.00 p.m. from Monday to Sunday, and to reduce penalty and shiftwork rates for work performed on Saturdays and Sundays. The clerical award is a common rule award that prescribes conditions of employment for administrative and clerical employees in a broad range of industries, such as real estate, medical centres and hospitality. The grade 1 weekly adult wage rate is just over $500 per week. The majority of employees engaged under this award are women, many of whom have family responsibilities. If this application were successful it would lead to many employers pressuring employees to work on weekends as part of their ordinary working week for less pay. This would have a detrimental impact on family arrangements and even the ability of low-paid employees to maintain second jobs. The New South Wales Government does not support the employer application. As the Premier said last week:
Profits are running high and employers should not be trying to claw benefits off workers. Some workers are doing it tough and I support their right through weekend penalties to improve or maintain their position.
I strongly agree with the Premier. Family and community life will be disrupted as never before. Weekends are often the only time that working people have to spend time with their kids and to undertake community and sporting activities. Families are already paying the price for the steady erosion of the traditional weekend. The New South Wales Government believes that workers who work unsociable hours, either by necessity or by choice, should continue to be compensated with a penalty loading. This case highlights one of the strengths of the New South Wales industrial relations system: employers and unions can bring matters relating to conditions of employment before the independent umpire to be heard and determined on the merits of the arguments, not because of the respective bargaining power of the parties.
Compare our system with the sort of unitary industrial relations system that powerful employers through the Business Council of Australia are lobbying the Howard Government to introduce: a system whereby awards are stripped back to only six allowable matters, including a system whereby there are no protections for employees about when hours will be worked or when penalty, overtime and shiftwork rates will apply; a system whereby employment conditions will only be determined only by the bargaining power of workers and not by the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission; a system that will further reduce the quality of life for working families.
The agenda that the Howard Government and some employers have in mind for workers and their families clearly illustrates why the New South Wales Government is committed to defending our industrial relations system against attack by the Commonwealth. Now, more than ever before, it is imperative that the Opposition's policy on these matters is heard. Do those opposite support a Canberra-based system? Do they support wage cuts? Do they support job insecurity? The honourable member for Gosford did not touch on any of these issues in his somewhat rambling speech, in which he tried to support his proposed amendment.
I can only deduce from the silence of those on the other side of the Chamber that they have nothing to say about industrial relations and nothing to contribute to the important debate about the working lives of the people of New South Wales. It can only be assumed that the Opposition has no industrial relations policy, no contribution to make, and no idea about the reality that working men and women face. The Leader of the Opposition made that clear in his interview a couple of Sundays ago, when he was looking forward to shopping, on a day when many were hard at work worrying about whether their wages would be slashed. I call on the Opposition to say something—anything—about industrial relations and, most importantly, to reveal its true colours to the people of New South Wales. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [4.01 p.m.]: A good, fair industrial relations policy leads to more profitable businesses and more jobs. There are many small and large employers on the Clarence. New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-op has more than 300 employees. Ramsay Meats has 150 employees. Six years ago it was Gilbertson's Meats, a good union-run establishment with all of the rorts that come with unions. The place went broke and closed. When Ramsay bought the place he reopened on his conditions—fair wages, not rorts. The place is still running well and 200 people are taking home a fair wage and are giving a fair day's work. I see very little knowledge or understanding of small business on the government benches. I see workers and union people who think that anyone who has a small business has heaps of money and can be ripped off.
Ms Angela D'Amore: Have you ever been a worker?
Mr STEVE CANSDELL: I have worked at the abattoirs and I understand the rorts that unions run. I have a small business on the North Coast. I know we get under the skin of union people. The red flag flies high and the temperature rises. There are plenty of small businesses in the Clarence, and the people who run them work hard. Many small businesses people work for $3 to $5 an hour. They work six or seven days a week, 12 hours a day, and if they want a few hours off they pay a casual $14 or $16 an hour. Members on the government benches are ignorant and have little understanding. I support the amendment, which basically calls for increased productivity while putting into perspective the industrial relations policy.
Ms Noreen Hay: Point of order: The point of order relates to relevance. Neither the amendment nor the original motion is being dealt with here, and I ask that the honourable member be requested to return to the substance of the amendment.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sure the honourable member for Clarence will do that.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL: We are talking about businesses and effective industrial relations policies. I support the Federal Government's industrial relations policy, which will give people a fair chance to run their small businesses. Right now they cannot sack anyone who thieves, they cannot sack anyone who smokes dope on the job.
Ms Angela D'Amore: Of course you can.
Mr STEVE CANSDELL: Of course you can, if you want to slip them $3,000 to $10,000 to save going through the appeals process. I have seen plenty of that and many people have come to me with their concerns. Years ago I worked at a shutdown out the back of Mascot. I was given a job by a good mate of mine who was a good union man. When I walked through the door he slapped a ticket in my left hand and a boilermaker's ticket in my right hand; then I could sit on my backside and play cards and rip off the employer. I do not support the motion. I support small business having the right to hire and fire whom they want. We are not sending kids down the mines, and neither are we trying to close down small business. New South Wales would benefit from a better industrial relations policy that supported small business, not one that condemned it with regulations, costs and fines as this Government does.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [4.06 p.m.]: I also support the motion by the honourable member for Drummoyne. The Federal Government's attack on the wages and conditions of working people in New South Wales via its proposed hostile takeover requires a detailed response from the Leader of the Opposition. I wish us luck, because since I have been in this place I have not seen a detailed response on anything from the Leader of the Opposition. The people of New South Wales deserve to know where he stands and, after the debate today, where a number of members opposite stand.
We keep hearing from members opposite about union hacks on this side of the House. I was a small business person, and it is important to recall that Employers First is a union of employers. Business people pay fees and become members and get representation. When honourable members talk about unions, they should talk about all types of unions. As Employers First is a union of employers it is not surprising that it might apply to reduce wages. It wants to reduce the wages of some of the hardest-working employees.
We deserve to know whether the Leader of the Opposition is with workers in New South Wales—which would be a nice change—or against them. Does the Leader of the Opposition support lower wages for these employees? We are talking about loadings and penalties for people who work Saturdays and Sundays, night shifts and early mornings. Most of them are young, and the only incentive they have to do those jobs is that they get a bit of extra money. These employees are the drivers of large parts of the New South Wales economy. They drive our tourism, retail and leisure industries. They work long hours on weekends and after hours on weekdays so that customer demand can be met and company profits can be generated.
These employees are students with higher education fees to pay. They are parents with second or third jobs who are trying to meet mortgage pressures. They are people with family and carer responsibilities who are forced into working unsociable hours because of family pressures caused by Federal industrial relations policies. As the Premier has said, these people are doing it tough. They are working when many of us would choose not to and they are missing out on many weekend family and social activities that many of us take for granted.
We do not need a Leader of the Opposition who is so out of touch that he can do his Sunday shopping without any regard for what the people serving him are being paid. It is breathtaking that he has not even turned his mind to this issue. Industrial relations has not been off the front pages of any major daily newspaper for at least 12 months. The Federal system is currently subject to proposed radical changes to right of entry and unfair dismissal legislation, which would remove significant rights of unions and employees. The Federal Government wants to get rid of minimum wage reviews and allow workers to be sacked for no reason.
In response the Premier, the Minister for Industrial Relations and all other State Premiers have been on the front foot defending the State systems. In particular, the Premier and the Minister for Industrial Relations have been clearly articulating the New South Wales Government's view on industrial relations. That view is we do not want or need Federal interference in our stable and efficient industrial relations system. We do not want increased industrial disputation or employer lockouts. We do not want secret individual contracts. We do not want fairness in the workplace to be eliminated. We do not want lower wages and we certainly do not want every job to be casual or, worse, casual with no loading.
What have we heard from the Leader of the Opposition? When he has gone shopping after hours and on Sundays, he has been served by employees who receive a well-deserved bonus for working on weekends. How can we take the Leader of the Opposition seriously when he says during a Sunday interview that he goes shopping on a Sunday but he does not know whether the people serving him should be paid penalty rates. He is not serious about the concerns of working people and he does not understand why people work such hours. The result of the recent referendum that was held in Western Australia last weekend on extended and weekend trading shows how much families value their weekends and time together. The proposal to extend trading hours was soundly rejected by the people of Western Australia. If we expect employees to work late at night and on Saturdays and Sundays, then they should expect to be remunerated appropriately in recognition of their missing out on important social and leisure time. [Time expired.]
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [4.11 p.m.], in reply: The Opposition is obsessed with the proposition that strong unions and conditions in the workplace mean inefficiency. I remind the Opposition that during the Olympic Games our State ran very efficiently and we had strong agreements with the unions and a unionised work force. It should be noted that construction work and other services cost 20 per cent to 30 per cent less in New South Wales than in other States, because we do not have a great deal of industrial disputation. The Opposition must acknowledge that a good industrial relations system that protects workers and provides them with adequate and substantial remuneration improves rather than worsens efficiency.
Further, the Opposition should note that the small business sector accounts for 97 per cent of all businesses in New South Wales and employs 1.4 million people. The strong small business sector in this State has not been damaged in any way by the New South Wales industrial relations system. We would not be able to say the same thing if we went to a Federal system. The Opposition claimed that it is too difficult to sack people in New South Wales. The Australian way is a fair go for all. One of the principles of industrial relations is procedural fairness. Employees should be told what they are doing wrong and be given the opportunity to address the problem. They should not be sacked willy-nilly. I have assisted many small businesses in my electorate in dismissal or disciplinary matters. Not one of them has been concerned about my position or about the protocols I have shown them. Rather, they have welcomed a State member of Parliament who is able to assist them and their employees.
Clearly, there is a great deal of concern amongst employees, the union movement and the New South Wales Government about the Employers First application to cut weekend penalty rates. This side of the House understands and appreciates the difficulties that many people face in meeting the competing demands of work, family and mortgages and finding time to socialise with friends and family. The second income earner in a family may have to work on weekends or in the evenings because it is not viable to have both parents away from home at the same time. The children have to be fed, bathed and put to bed. Students might work late at night and on weekends so that they can pay the increasingly high cost of their tertiary education, which has just increased to $150,00 for a degree. Inevitably, work arrangements—and there are many variations on the theme—can place pressures on families. The time available to spend with family and friends and the opportunities to attend the many sporting and community activities of their children are reduced.
Sometimes people have to face financial reality. They have to take the Sunday shift because the penalty rates make a difference to the household budget. They work at the supermarket after their partner gets home so that someone is available to look after the children. These are examples of the way many people in our society are forced to live their lives so that they can meet the household budget and improve their circumstances. I am talking about people who are working to get ahead and who are doing it tough. They are trying to do the right thing by their families. The New South Wales Government understands the pressures on families and will resist any attempt to cut into the wages of these employees. We say loud and clear: Do not rip off our workers, protect our employees, leave their well-earned penalty rates alone and recognise the contribution they are making to the New South Wales economy, their employers' profits and their families.
It is high time that the Opposition reveals, even if it has to be via the shadow spokesman for Industrial Relations, what it thinks about the Howard Government's stance on industrial relations. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is too gutless to admit to the people of New South Wales that he does not give a toss about their working lives. Let me make it clear that Labor members in this Chamber will support the mothers who work on weekends and the students who work weekends and at night while undertaking their university degrees. We will move mountains to support the employees and trade unions of this State. We will support freedom of association, as endorsed by international labour laws and organisations.
We will protect industrial officers, organisers and general secretaries so that they are able to represent their union members. I request a detailed response from the Leader of the Opposition. I call on him to either reveal what he thinks, if anything, of industrial relations or to express his public support for the successful and co-operative New South Wales industrial relations system. We have the best system in the world. We are the envy of the world, and we want to remain that way. We will protect our employees, employers and small business owners. I commend the motion to the House.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 47
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry | Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell | Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 34
Mr Aplin
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
Ms Gadiel | Mr Armstrong |
| Mrs Perry | Mr Brogden |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 49
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos | Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 34
Mr Aplin
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J.H. Turner
Mr R.W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
Ms Gadiel
Mrs Perry | Mr Armstrong
Mr Brogden |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:03 : Update this page