- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 7 March 2006
Industrial Relations Amendment Bill
Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 39 of 41
| Next Item »
Page: 21148
Bills introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport) [7.53 p.m.]: I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I bring before the House an issue that starkly distinguishes the values of the Labor Government from those sitting opposite. The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill and the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill are one plank of the New South Wales Government's response to the Commonwealth Government's divisive WorkChoices legislation, which is a direct attack on the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australians. It is an attack supported by the Opposition in this State. The so-called WorkChoices legislation offers no choice and no protection, and will lead to confusion and complexity for both employers and employees. Under the WorkChoices legislation, all foreign, trading and financial corporations will be forced to operate under WorkChoices—they will have no choice. [Quorum formed.]
The Commonwealth Government has sought to base the legislation on its constitutional power to legislate in relation to foreign, trading and financial corporations. The New South Wales Government believes that the WorkChoices legislation goes beyond the scope of this constitutional power. For this reason, the Government has launched a challenge to the legislation in the High Court. The High Court has indicated that this will be heard in May 2006. The WorkChoices legislation represents an unprecedented attack on the working conditions of ordinary Australian workers. It is an attack on family living standards. What will employees get from WorkChoices? They will get a substandard range of statutory protections to replace what were once comprehensive awards and agreements; the potential for a lower real minimum wage, if the Fair Pay Commission drives down pay rises; protracted disputes with employers over wages and working conditions; and a sidelined Australian Industrial Relations Commission without the ability to deal with industrial disputes easily and expeditiously.
By contrast, the New South Wales Labor Government supports an industrial relations system that promotes fairness and equity, and supports employers and employees in making decisions about the workplace. That is why the Government is introducing these bills. The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill makes three important amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to extend additional options and protections to those who are transferred to the Federal industrial relations system by the WorkChoices legislation. The bill does not add anything new in substance to employee and employer rights and obligations. Unlike our Federal counterparts, we are not trying to interfere with the industrial arrangements that the parties have entered into. We are attempting to maintain the rights and obligations that employees and employers now enjoy, before WorkChoices rolls over the top of them.
So what are we proposing to do? First, the bill will give industrial parties a further option for making and maintaining co-operative industrial arrangements outside the WorkChoices system. A critical part of such arrangements is access to a means of negotiating and settling the disputes that inevitably arise from time to time. WorkChoices guts the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in dispute settling, and specifically prohibits it from being much more than an advisor to the parties. This is so, even if the parties agree to give the Federal commission a stronger role. The bill provides that, if the parties conclude a common law deed of arrangement, and they agree to give the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission a role in resolving disputes about the application of the deed, the commission will be empowered to do so.
This gives the parties another option for making agreements if the State system is no longer available, and provides them with ready access to an expert tribunal as a means of supporting a co-operative industrial relationship. The bill further provides that those enterprise consent awards that currently apply to constitutional corporations will cease to operate, and will be replaced by enterprise agreements in the same terms as the previous award. Given that enterprise consent awards are made with—and cannot be made without—the consent of the parties, they are in substance no different from an enterprise agreement, and so should be treated as such. As a result, such agreements will be transferred to the Federal industrial relations system in a form that protects the agreed conditions to the maximum extent possible. This is in the interests of both employers and employees because it protects the integrity of the agreement that they have made.
Thirdly, the bill proposes some minor administrative amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to make it easier for the New South Wales commission to respond to the needs of industrial parties. This will be done by amending section 159 of the Act to clarify that the general power of the president includes a specific power to determine the way in which a matter or a class of matters is listed before the commission, and to determine the allocation of matters or the way in which such matters are to be included. In addition, the bill will amend section 156 (2) of the Act to provide that a full bench of the commission must include at least one presidential member and at least one member who is a commissioner or—if no commissioner is available—one non-judicial presidential member. This will open up the membership of full benches so that non-judicial deputy presidents may be used to fill the non-judicial role on a full bench where no commissioner is available.
In the immediate term, these proposals will allow the president to prioritise matters likely to be affected by the commencement of WorkChoices. In the longer term, the commission's capacity to deal with emerging industrial relations issues will be improved. The reality is that WorkChoices severely restricts the choices available to employers and employees. It will be vastly more complex to work with and it will be more costly for all parties involved. This bill aims to mitigate some of those effects for those New South Wales employers and employees who will be conscripted shortly into the Federal industrial relations system.
I now turn to the second bill that the Government is introducing into the House. The Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill will make certain public sector employees the direct employees of the Government rather than individual statutory corporations. The Government believes that about 45 per cent of the New South Wales public sector may be exposed to the WorkChoices legislation. In particular, a range of public sector organisations are statutory corporations that could be characterised as trading or financial corporations for the purpose of the WorkChoices legislation. A number of these organisations employ key front-line staff, such as nurses and allied health workers in the health area, and teachers in TAFE institutions. The Government has a choice in how it employs its staff. And our choice is to take direct action where we can—to protect the working conditions and living standards of our own public sector employees.
WorkChoices does not apply to the direct employees of the Government of New South Wales. Therefore, by transferring public sector workers to direct Government employment, we are ensuring the continued application of the State industrial relations system for key front-line employees, such as nurses, ambulance staff, TAFE teachers and support staff, home care workers, and other employees of statutory corporations. About 45 per cent of the public sector—schoolteachers and support staff, police, firefighters, and other Crown employees—will not be covered by WorkChoices. This is because they are already employed by the Government in the service of the Crown, and not by a corporation. At this stage, the employees of State-owned corporations have not been included in this bill, and the Government is considering all available options for protecting their employees from the deleterious effects of the WorkChoices legislation.
The Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002, the Health Administration Act 1982 and the Health Services Act 1997, and makes consequential amendments to the legislation establishing various statutory corporations. Generally, the bill removes the existing employment powers of the public sector corporations listed within it, and provides that the employees of these corporations instead will be employed by the Government of New South Wales in the service of the Crown under a new chapter 1A of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The bill makes it clear that the transition from employment by a public sector corporation to employment by the Crown will not change the terms and conditions under which these staff are employed, and will not break the continuity of their service. With the exception of TAFE administrative staff, the bill does not make any public sector employees into public servants.
Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to create a new "Government Service of NSW", which will consist of people employed by the Government of New South Wales in the service of the Crown. Staff within the Government Service will be assigned to public sector corporations to enable them to exercise their functions. The New South Wales Government will employ staff in divisions of the Government Service. A new schedule to the Act will list the divisions of the Government Service. Part 1 of the schedule lists the public service departments, and part 2 lists the non-public service divisions within the Government Service. In practice, the staff currently employed by each statutory corporation will form part of the division that is assigned to assist that same corporation in exercising its functions. Part 3 of the schedule lists the special employment divisions within the new Government Service. The employment of staff within these divisions is subject to the limitations specified in relation to those staff. This division is intended to preserve the effect of existing powers that statutory corporations have to employ outside the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, such as powers to employ casual staff.
The bill does not include the teaching service, the police service or parliamentary staff, although these will continue to be defined as "public sector services" under the Act. The health service will not be included in the Government Service, but its staff will be transferred to Crown employment through amendments to health-specific legislation. Each division of the Government Service will have a division head who will exercise the Government's employment functions in relation to that group of staff. The person holding the position of division head will be listed in schedule 1 to the Act. In relation to public service departments, the existing director general or chief executive officer will be the division head. In relation to other public sector corporations, the division head generally will be the existing chief executive officer. Schedule 1 also contains a number of transitional provisions to facilitate the smooth transition of staff into the New South Wales Government Service, and ensure that their current employment terms and conditions are transferred to the new employer.
In particular, provision is made to ensure that the accrued annual leave, extended service leave and sick leave are transferred to the new employer. Further, if a Federal award or agreement applies to an employee prior to the changes the terms and conditions of the award will be carried over as a State instrument. The new arrangements also will preserve the current rights of employees to access appeals tribunals. As the Public Employment Office is a statutory corporation, it has been decided to de-corporatise that organisation to be absolutely certain that it will not be covered by WorkChoices. Therefore, the bill abolishes the Public Employment Office and replaces it with the "Director of Public Employment", who will be the Director General of the Premier's Department. The Director of Public Employment will have the same powers and functions as are currently held by the Public Employment Office.
In addition to amending the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, the bill also inserts a new part 1 into chapter 9 of the Health Services Act, dealing with the employment of staff in the New South Wales health service. The bill provides that existing public health sector employees also will be employed under this part by the Government of New South Wales in the service of the Crown. Staff will be employed within the New South Wales health service to enable the following health sector organisations to exercise their functions: Area health services and statutory health corporations, and the public hospitals that they control; prescribed affiliated health corporations, in relation to recognised establishments and recognised services; the Health Administration Corporation; and the Director General of Health, in relation to ambulance services, and the provision of health support services to public health organisations and the public hospitals that they control.
The bill provides that the Director General of NSW Health may exercise the Government's employer functions on its behalf in relation to the staff employed in the NSW Health Service. Again, consequential provisions ensure that all staff who become members of the newly constituted NSW Health Service will continue to be employed in accordance with the terms and conditions that applied to them as members of staff of the statutory corporation concerned. The bill does not change the salary, wages or employment conditions of these employees.
Special issues arise in relation to affiliated health organisations. These are non-government religious and charitable organisations, some or all of whose establishments or services are recognised as part of the public health system. The Health Administrative Corporation is currently the representative employer for these organisations. Given the non-governmental nature of these organisations, the bill provides that organisations may become declared affiliated health organisations by being prescribed as such in a regulation. However, they will not be prescribed if they do not concur. The staff of declared affiliated health organisations also will be employed in the NSW Health Service by the Government of New South Wales in the service of the Crown.
A provision has been included in the bill to ensure that only NSW Health Service staff whom the declared organisation considers will respect their health care philosophy will be able to work in their recognised services or establishments. Whether or not an organisation is declared by regulation for public health sector employment purposes will not affect its status as a public health organisation under the Health Services Act. Non-declared organisations, which are funded as part of the public health system, will be required as far as possible to provide terms and conditions of employment for their staff that mirror those for the NSW Health Service. Regulations will also be developed to facilitate mobility between non-declared organisations and the NSW Health Service.
In relation to the Ambulance Service, additional changes are necessary to preserve the exempt benefits for its employees under Commonwealth fringe benefits tax legislation. These are contingent on the staff being employed by the body charged with providing public ambulance services. Therefore, the Ambulance Service of New South Wales will no longer be a statutory corporation, but will retain its distinct identity as a service. The service will continue to comprise the highly professional group of staff dedicated to providing ambulance services for the people of New South Wales. However, they will be transferred to the NSW Health Service to form a distinct and separate service within it.
The bill repeals the Ambulance Services Act 1990, and inserts a new chapter 5A into the Health Services Act 1997 which will instead establish and regulate the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. In future, the Director General of Health will exercise the functions of employer of Ambulance Service staff and also will be vested with the statutory responsibility for providing ambulance services. Day-to-day operational management responsibility will continue to reside with the chief executive, and in all practical respects the Ambulance Service of New South Wales will continue to operate as it currently does.
Schedule 3 to the bill contains a set of amendments to the Health Administration Act 1982 that are required as a result of the changes to the NSW Health Service. Schedule 4 contains a set of amendments to the legislation constituting the various statutory corporations covered by the bill. These provisions expressly remove the power of the statutory corporations to employ staff. These corporations will instead draw on the employees of the Government Service of New South Wales to enable them to carry out their functions. The New South Wales Labor Government strongly opposes the Commonwealth's WorkChoices legislation and the impact it will have on the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australians. These bills represent just one aspect of the Government's response to that legislation. They are strong measures that represent Labor's strong commitment to protecting fairness and equity within our community. I commend these bills to the House.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.14 p.m.]: The people and the public servants of New South Wales have a fundamental right to good government, which is based in our Westminster system upon Parliament having the opportunity to deliberate upon and scrutinise legislation before it passes into law. We have seen in this exercise an abuse of the concept of good government by the Government. At noon today the Premier held a press conference with the Minister for Industrial Relations and issued a press release announcing the Government's intention. At 3.20 p.m., when I asked whether a copy of the bill was available, I was told that it was not. At 4:15 p.m., through the courtesy of the Minister's office, I received a copy of the bill.
Fundamental legislation that will affect 186,000 employees of the State of New South Wales, according to the Government's calculations, is not properly addressed if it is put to Parliament in a rush, with standing orders suspended by the majority of the House against the will of the minority of the House, thus ensuring there is no proper scrutiny or debate. What is the Government afraid of? The House is now in its second week of sittings this year. The House has scheduled about 50 sitting days between now and the end of November. This legislation could be considered appropriately in accordance with the standing orders and the established procedures of the House. Yet the Government, for a reason that it refuses to disclose, believes it should be rushed through the House, and on this very night. This is not emergency legislation; there is not a crisis.
The Government is pursuing its constitutional option of a High Court challenge to the Commonwealth industrial relations legislation. Accordingly, it could allow this legislation to be considered and proper community consultation to be undertaken. I invite the Government and the Minister to tell me what community groups have been consulted about this legislation. Were business groups consulted? Were trade unions consulted? Was the Labor Council consulted? Were a raft of bodies with an interest in industrial legislation consulted? Were the 186,000 public service employees who the Government believes will be affected by this legislation consulted? Are their views to be taken into account? When the Federal Government passed its industrial relations legislation it allowed a period of deliberation and for an inquiry to take place in the Senate. Witnesses were heard and there was a genuine debate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! Government members will come to order.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The Australian Labor Party was given opportunities to consult widely about the legislation, which had been before the Parliament on a number of previous occasions. In this case there has been a denial of the appropriate processes of the House and no reason has been given for that denial. Therefore, this legislation is not capable of being scrutinised effectively, nor can effective community consultation take place. The people of New South Wales can have no confidence in a process that is a frustration of ordinary democratic rights. What is given by a denial of the democratic process can just as easily be denied and withdrawn by a denial of the democratic process.
The New South Wales Government under Premiers Carr and Iemma have treated the Public Service of this State with absolute contempt. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility has been abandoned. For every crisis that the Government has faced, it has simply made a senior public servant the scapegoat. The most recent example is Mr Paul Forward, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Roads and Traffic Authority, who was made a scapegoat by then the Minister, Joe Tripodi. No Minister resigns, but public servants are sacked. Public servants are treated as so much disposable baggage. We know that 217 public servants sit with no work to do, one for as long as 14 years. Those people are forgotten and ignored. The Government has no compassion for its public servants. Occupational health and safety requirements are ignored as they relate to police officers. About 27 police stations need to be rebuilt, but the Government has done nothing. Ambulance officers at Toukley ambulance station are forced to work in a facility that has an asbestos problem.
The school maintenance program is $116 million behind. Schools are poorly maintained, presenting occupational health and safety risks to teachers. Nurses work in overcrowded, difficult, tense conditions and their needs are not being addressed. Police are forced to work in one-person police stations with tragic results. At every level the Government has abandoned its responsibility to the State's public servants and uses public servants simply as scapegoats for the failure of its own policies. One particular department has had five chief executive officers in a period of five years. It is like a revolving door for senior officers in the Government.
After 10 years of ignoring and mismanaging the public service the Labor Party wants to say it is sorry. There have been 10 years of overworked, underpaid police officers, nurses, teachers and departmental staff, and now the Labor Party wants the people of New South Wales to believe it cares. The New South Wales Labor Party simply does not care about public sector employees; all it cares about is scoring a couple of cheap political points. It thinks that by introducing this legislation it can make its past neglect of public servants simply disappear. The Labor Party continues to force police to work in unsafe conditions and environments; it continues to force nurses to work under increasingly stressful conditions; it continues to force teachers to work without resources or proper budget maintenance. If the Labor Party truly cared about public sector employees it would fund schools properly, it would fix police stations and it would hire more nurses.
The people of New South Wales want better from a Government that already has pledged that it will cut 5,000 public service jobs and which has a Treasurer who is on the record as saying he believes that 20 per cent of public servant positions—that is, 60,000 positions—should be abolished. The Treasurer has made his feelings about the Public Service quite clear again and again, and they are not praiseworthy. In response to the Treasurer's admonitions, warnings and threats about the jobs of thousands of public servants, all the Premier has done is to promote him. The New South Wales Labor Party stands condemned for its contempt for the public sector in this State.
The House should bear in mind that the Government has not consulted public servants about major issues that affect them. WorkCover was relocated from Sussex Street to my electorate of Gosford without any consultation with the Public Service. The first public servants knew about it was when they read the announcement by the Premier in the media. Public servants working for WorkCover suddenly found themselves in a situation where they knew they would have to either travel an extra one and a half hours a day or leave the New South Wales public sector. That is the standard of consultation that the Government offers employees—zero. The Government has a long tradition of duping the Public Service and the people of New South Wales and now it asks the people of New South Wales to continue to trust it, despite the failure of its policies in health, education, police, roads and railways.
The Government is in its terminal stage and is now drawing to its close. It will be an unmourned loss, an unmourned departure, similar to the departure of Barrie Unsworth in 1988. The Labor Party does not allow any opportunity to debate the specifics of this legislation because it is out of touch and it simply believes that it can use what power it still has to force legislation through, which is contemptuous of this House. One of the bills, the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill, contains 130 pages. The Opposition was allowed three hours to look at the bill, which affects 186,000 public servants. The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill, which was introduced at the same time, contains approximately 16 pages and has schedules amending a list of Acts and affecting a list of departments, their structure, their chief executive officers and, of course, the structure of the employment of the people in those departments.
The Coalition in New South Wales is pledged to support the public servants of this State. We stand by them, believe in them and have confidence in them. We support the teachers, the police, the nurses, the docks workers, the firemen and every public servant who is looking after the people of this State. Our only intent is to rationalise the structure of the Public Service to ensure that it remains efficient. Nobody will lose their job—not a single person's employment is threatened—every public servant who wishes to remain in the public service will do so with our blessing. The only change is that as people retire from the Public Service, where it is appropriate—and it is not always appropriate—we will look to restructure their position.
We are the friends of the Public Service. We are the friends of the firemen, the police, the health workers and the teachers. We are the friends of every worker in this State because we offer them good, secure government. We offer them a fair go. We do not seek to use public servants as pawns in a political endeavour and as scapegoats for political failure. The Government has downgraded public servants in this State again and again so that they have rightly and genuinely lost confidence in the Government.
There was some expectation that when Mr Iemma became Premier there would be a change in the style of the Government and its attitude towards the workers of this State. We all remember Mr Carr standing on the steps of this Parliament giving a two-fingered salute to the workers of New South Wales who were demonstrating in Macquarie Street. That was his contempt for the workers of this State who had been organised by the trade unions to demonstrate against legislation that they believed was inappropriate. And what did Mr Carr do? He walked onto the veranda of Parliament and gave them the two-fingered salute. That was the way Labor looked after the workers of New South Wales. We thought that had changed; we thought Premier Iemma would offer a new approach. Premier Iemma promised a new approach, and after 10 years of a tired and tiring Government we were told somehow it had all changed. Hey presto! The cloth was pushed away from the magician's table and out came a new white rabbit, named Morris Iemma, with a new hat on. But things have not changed.
This legislation is typical of the way the Government treats its workers. The professional lives of 186,000 people will be changed. They will have their employment structure changed by the Government without notice and without consultation. Why? Because the Government is desperate and is seeking to create illusory issues to confuse New South Wales workers. But at the end of the day the workers know that their schools are badly maintained, their hospitals are overcrowded, there are no adequate mental health facilities, their traffic is stuck in gridlock, their trains are constantly late, overcrowded and dirty and in many areas their streets are unsafe. Even areas that have been regarded traditionally as strong Labor areas, such as the Aboriginal community at Redfern, are now turning upon the Government because it simply treats them with the same contempt it reserves for all New South Wales workers.
The Coalition will look after the workers of this State. We will make sure that their industrial conditions are protected, that they get proper pay, that they get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and that their superannuation and working conditions are looked after. Every public servant in New South Wales can look to us and know that as an incoming government we stand with them and by them for the betterment of the people of New South Wales. This legislation is classic Labor politics. It is simply the Labor Party at its traditional worst seeking to create smokescreens to hide its failures and to ensure that it has an illusory issue. We are the friends of the workers of this State. We will stand by the workers of this State, be they public servants or private sector employees. Every worker can look to us with confidence. An incoming Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government will look after their wages and conditions.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [8.30 p.m.]: It is a great pleasure to speak on this legislation, which protects the rights of New South Wales government workers. I have been most surprised by the speech of the honourable member for Gosford tonight. It was a rather subdued effort compared to what we have become used to hearing from him—the fire and brimstone, H.R. Nicholls Society rhetoric that we often hear in this place. He was very quiet and very subdued. What do we put that down to? Perhaps we can put it down to the fact that once again today, when asked by the media what he thought about the industrial legislation and whether the New South Wales Liberal Party's policy position was still to hand over industrial relations to the Federal Government, the Leader of the Opposition refused to answer. The media asked him the question directly, as I understand it, and he once again refused to answer.
Not surprisingly, the Opposition is embarrassed because it knows its position of going lickety-split after John Howard in his drive to deregulate industrial relations and take away the rights of workers is worrying the people of New South Wales. The Opposition knows people are upset and concerned about the future for industrial relations and working conditions. That is why the contribution of the honourable member for Gosford was so subdued. It contained only a little of his usual rhetoric. He said that the Coalition parties are friends of the workers, but he only says that because he knows it gets a laugh from the Government because it is such a silly proposition.
We are dealing with important legislation. It is all about protecting State workers, who have important jobs, from the impact of John Howard's industrial relations legislation. John Howard wants to override the conditions that workers in New South Wales have built up over many years and ensure that over time—it will not happen instantly—those conditions are eroded so that people are earning less, cost less to employ and are less valued. Those people include teachers, nurses, police, ambulance officers, fire brigade officers, workers in the Department of Community Services, and primary industry workers who do such a good job in regional electorates such as the one I represent. Those people have important jobs in the community that we need and value. That is why the Government has introduced this legislation today. It has done so with some urgency, certainly, because it is urgent that we get it through to make sure the rights of those people are protected.
The Monaro electorate has a large work force of such people. In Queanbeyan and Cooma particularly there are a lot of government employees. There are many teachers who work hard for our kids and many nurses in the Queanbeyan and Cooma hospitals who are very committed. In Bombala there are fewer government employees but there is still quite a number. It is the same at Braidwood, and there are a lot of National Parks workers at Jindabyne. All those people are concerned about John Howard's industrial relations changes and the effect they will have on them. How do I know? I have seen them wearing their "Your Rights at Work" badges to let people know that despite the fact they are working hard at their jobs they are holding a quiet protest. They do not want their rights to disappear under John Howard's industrial relations legislation.
The workers' conditions are under threat from Howard's ideological drive. It is a drive that we all know John Howard has had since he first entered politics, but which he has been given the opportunity to implement only recently as a result of his Senate majority. We have seen the Opposition's complete failure in this place to stand up for the workers of New South Wales. That is something that people in the Monaro electorate tell me over and over. They do not like the policy of the New South Wales Opposition of handing over the State industrial relations system to the Federal Government lock, stock and barrel. It happened in Victoria. Since the industrial relations system was handed over by the Kennett Government, far from Victoria having a smoother industrial relations system there are now more strikes and working days lost than in the work force in New South Wales. It has not been a successful change in industrial relations, both in the number of working days lost and from the workers' point of view.
The Opposition is coy about its policy because I assume it is hearing the same sort of feedback that I am getting in the community I represent. People do not like what the Howard Government is doing. They are starting to hear examples of how the new industrial relations system works. Just before Christmas I heard about a classic case from a constituent of mine. He had been engaged in negotiations about a new Australian workplace agreement [AWA] with his employer. He and his fellow employees were already on AWAs, the agreements the Howard Government wants everyone to be on, including government employees in New South Wales. This person received a text message from his employer that read, "Sign AWA or no pay rise." That was the simple message to the employees of that organisation. If that is the way industrial relations in Australia is going, I do not want any part of it and I do not think most of the community want any part of it either.
Another worker who contacted my office recently had received something in the mail from the Labor Senator who represents our area talking about the impact of industrial relations. She did what a lot of people would do when she got the mail. She said, "It's from a politician" and threw it in the bin. A week or so later she was sacked without notice by her employer, who was apparently under the misapprehension that John Howard's laws were already in force. She thought about it and phoned a lawyer because she was still covered by the unfair dismissal laws. She will pursue her rights. That was an employer who thought the Howard Government's industrial relations changes meant that he did not have to explain to this employee why he wanted her to go; he did not have to give her warnings or counselling or anything like that. That is all the unfair dismissal law asks for at the moment: it asks an employer to give an employee a fair chance to improve and do what the employer wants. That is the sort of right that will go under as a result of John Howard's industrial relations legislation.
There has been another classic case in Queanbeyan that demonstrates how the Howard Government's ideology is trying to push through industrial relations changes. Before the last Federal election the Howard Government promised—an ironclad guarantee; a core promise, I think—that Queanbeyan would get one of the new Federal technical colleges. That is something the Federal Government wanted to put in place to address the appalling skills shortage in Australia as a result of the Federal Government's failure over a number of years to invest in TAFES, universities and apprenticeships. Two groups got together. There is only one good proposal now for a technical college in Queanbeyan. It is quite sensible. It involves the existing high school and the existing TAFE college working together with the new technical college. One would think that was a logical approach that would make best use of existing resources and personnel who are already working in the education system.
That proposal was rejected by the Federal Government—not because it was not a good working proposal or that it would not provide good technical education to kids and young people, but because the TAFE and high school employees would not go onto AWAs. They wanted to keep their award rights. That technical college for Queanbeyan is now on hold—I would say shelved—because the Howard Government was not willing to bend in its ideological drive to make those people sign AWAs instead of having award payments. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training has been willing to work with those technical colleges to give people choice, but we are not willing to force our existing employees to reduce their award conditions. It is another sign of the way the Howard Government's agenda is being used to push workplace changes onto people who do not want them.
In the Federal electorate of Eden-Monaro, of which my seat of Monaro is part, there has been a big reaction to the Howard Government's workplace package. Many people attended meetings in Queanbeyan—many people would say is to be expected because it is a Labor-dominated area—to express their great concern. However, the conservative areas such as Cooma and Bombala had a massive roll out of people concerned about their rights, and these people were not all unionists. Many of these people are Liberal voters. Indeed, many were older people who remember the fights involved in getting rights for workers in Australia. Many of the older people are worried about what will happen when their 14-year-old or 15-year-old grandchildren try to get their first job. They know that the changes the Howard Government wants to force on New South Wales and the rest of Australia mean that people with relatively little power and fewer negotiating tools will be worse off.
Several groups in the Eden-Monaro area have received significant support from street stalls and campaigns that are being run. The group EMPOWER, which stands for Eden-Monaro people only want employment rights, which is based at Queanbeyan, ran street stalls every week for two months leading up to Christmas and received a terrific response from people coming through the shopping centres. The Snowy Monaro Your Rights at Work Group has held street stalls at Cooma and has received many petition signatures from people who are traditionally conservative voters. These are small communities and we know these people. The Far South Coast Group has received a similar reaction because people genuinely are concerned that John Howard has gone too far in taking away the rights of workers and they believe he should be kept in check.
For these reasons I know that the people of my electorate will support the bills. The New South Wales Government wants to ensure that this State's government workers do not have their rights stripped away by John Howard's industrial relations legislation. We want those people to remain working for the State, in their hospitals and for their kids, by ensuring that they continue to have decent working conditions. People do not want those conditions to be eroded by some ideological drive to lower working conditions and real wages in Australia. That is not a fair way for Australia to operate and it is why they will support the legislation introduced today. I take great pleasure in supporting these bills on behalf of the people of the Monaro electorate.
Ms NOREEN HAY (Wollongong) [8.43 p.m.]: I support the bills and congratulate the Iemma Labor Government on introducing them. I commend, also, the Minister, the Hon. John Della Bosca, for his efforts. The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission provides an avenue for parties to have industrial disputes resolved in an independent and transparent manner. Co-operative and harmonious workplaces have been the result of decisions by the Industrial Relations Commission, which has been an independent third party when disputes could not be resolved. The same though could not be said for the Federal system, which is plagued by disputes, complexities and confusion. The new system is not even under way and people are already confused. They will become even more confused under WorkChoices.
The changes are typical of both the Federal Coalition and the New South Wales Coalition. They think that workers are complete fools and, under the guise of pretending that workers will have some choice, they seek to establish changes to the unfair dismissal laws so that a young person seeking to negotiate employment, for example, with a major supermarket with an Australian workplace agreement, will have little choice. There is little choice for young people trying to get an apprenticeship or a traineeship with the Coalition's attitude towards their pay and entitlements.
We hear the usual bleating from the Federal Coalition that those workers will be protected, yet when workers find they have no protection, thanks to the Howard Government, John Howard will probably turn around and say that he did not know because no-one told him. It is not as if he has not suggested that before! The people of New South Wales know what the Federal Coalition is about, Labor members in this place know, the Minister and the Premier know, and we intend to make sure that the workers of this State also know.
The current Boeing industrial dispute at Williamtown airbase near Newcastle is just one example of the way that the confrontational and dispute-ridden Federal industrial relations system operates. The dispute at Boeing has dragged on embarrassingly and the lack of support by Opposition members has been disgraceful. Indeed, I should note for the record that no Coalition members are present in the Chamber. Members of the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition, so-called friends of the workers, are not present in the Chamber, although there are plenty of members on the Government benches because they are the real friends of the workers of New South Wales.
The aircraft mechanical engineers at the airbase, through the Australian Workers Union, are simply seeking to negotiate a collective agreement with their employer, Boeing Australia Ltd—shame on you, Boeing—which steadfastly refuses to engage in anything but individual contracts. Members who have been involved in defending workers' rights know what that is about. Such blatant disregard for a worker's democratic right to choose to bargain collectively and for the principles of conciliation has all the hallmarks of Howard's new industrial relations legislation.
To date, the Federal system has been inadequate to foster a resolution of this long-running dispute. Indeed, the Federal system has been inadequate to resolve virtually any dispute. Since Jeff Kennett handed Victoria's industrial relations over to the Commonwealth it has been a disaster, especially compared to industrial relations in New South Wales. I, for one, am prepared to stand up and speak for the people of New South Wales who elected me to this place, unlike Opposition members, who have a desperate need to keep talking down this State and who fail to support our workers. Of course, if they were present in the Chamber they would hear my comments.
Under John Howard's brave new world of workplace relations, sole workers will need to try to bargain with the company, like those at Boeing, which employs almost 150,000 people worldwide and has annual revenues of nearly $52 billion—and it wants to make more. With such an unfair contest, Australian workers and their families are right to expect protections from such needless conflict and to have access to an independent umpire to reach a fair outcome. This dispute clearly demonstrates what will happen in New South Wales when Howard inflicts his industrial relations system on the State—that is, if the New South Wales Coalition has its way and hands it over to the Commonwealth. I note that there is now one member of the Coalition present in the Chamber. The Boeing dispute is one example of that. The workers at Boeing deserve better treatment and a lot more support than they have received to date. I used to represent the services industry and there has been a lot of talk today about services workers.
I am concerned about the large component of mature-age women from non-English-speaking backgrounds in my electorate of Wollongong. How do we presume to tell them to negotiate an agreement with their employer? How will they do that? As it stands, without the New South Wales industrial relations system—if anyone cares to check the records—for instance, where would mature-age women from non-English-speaking backgrounds working for contract cleaners, who have numerous disputes before the Industrial Relations Commission, go? Already, some of these women are exploited by unscrupulous employers. I am not suggesting that all employers are unscrupulous—far from it—but some employers do exploit these women.
When I used to check on the working conditions of these women I found that some of them were being helped by their kids because they had five hours of work and were getting paid for three hours. They would take their kids along because they could not get the work done in time. And that was with the protection of the New South Wales industrial relations system. What hope do they have? If they must negotiate their conditions with their employer, I do not hold out much hope for them. Thank goodness they have the union to look after them—and hopefully they will continue to have the union looking after them. The conflict and complexity of the Federal system is characterised by the drawn out nature of the dispute at Boeing and Boeing's decision to deny its work force their fundamental right to bargain collectively. Under the Federal system, all power is put in the hands of employers—I have already given a couple of examples—and workers are left out in the cold, unable to negotiate a fair and reasonable wage, even if they could.
The WorkChoices Act is not the result of careful research, consultation or planning. Instead, it is the result of an extreme ideology from a power drunk government. If for no other reason, this bill is important because it will keep dispute resolution in the New South Wales industrial relations system. Under WorkChoices, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is sidelined from all but the most serious disputes. History shows that workers will not hand over all power under such terms and conditions. We should recall the disastrous maritime and shearers strikes of the late 1800s—the very reason that conciliation and arbitration through industrial commissions were established in the first place. We are facing skills shortages throughout the country, and employers will not always have the power. One would think that everybody involved would try to improve workers' conditions rather than diminish them continually. On behalf of workers, particularly those in my electorate of Wollongong, I am concerned that the so-called proposed Fair Pay Commissioner has already been reported as saying that workers should not expect pay rises to meet inflation and consumer price index increases. What exactly should they expect? And what exactly is the commissioner supposed to be doing? He has already made these comments, although the commission is not yet under way.
The New South Wales Opposition has failed to support the New South Wales Government in defending the people of New South Wales. Indeed, when asked, members opposite are on record as saying that a Coalition government would hand over industrial relations to the Federal Government, although we have a better record on lost work days due to industrial disputation. We have a better record on almost everything compared to the Victorian example since it has been under the Federal system. Yet the New South Wales Opposition refuses to support the New South Wales Government and the workers of New South Wales. I remind honourable members that while the honourable member for Gosford is horrified that the New South Wales Government relocated jobs to Gosford—shame on us for putting jobs into his electorate—we did not realise at the time that his role did not appear to be to do the best for the people of Gosford. It is apparent that the only hope for workers and their entitlements is if the New South Wales Government manages to succeed in its attempts to protect workers and to maintain the independent umpire.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: You don't even believe that.
Ms NOREEN HAY: Indeed, I do believe that. What is more, the longer I have been in this place—I indicate that two Opposition members are now in the Chamber—the more I believe every word I am saying because, unlike members opposite, I am not seeking to hide my position in relation to workers and the people of New South Wales. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. As I said, the honourable member for Gosford complained that jobs were relocated to his electorate. Perhaps the honourable member for Murrumbidgee has a complaint about jobs in his electorate. In Wollongong we have seen the dedication and the hard fight by workers and unions to improve productivity and maintain conditions. We have the luxury of having some excellent employers who have no interest in moving to the Federal system or in removing workers entitlements, unlike the New South Wales Opposition.
Opposition members are hypocritical, claiming to be the friends of teachers, police, et cetera, yet talking them down consistently. Members opposite are on record as wanting to sack 30,000 public servants, and that was before the Federal Government suggested that it might have control of the Senate. Basically, it is like a runaway horse on the other side of the Chamber. Members opposite simply cannot talk down this State and workers entitlements enough. Teachers, police, nurses—none of them is fooled by what members opposite say. They know what will happen if they are subjected to the kind of treatment and conditions that the Federal Government will impose. They know what they are up against.
Mr Adrian Piccoli: You are their employer.
Ms NOREEN HAY: We will stay their employer, and we will keep them in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee should take this opportunity and stand up for New South Wales workers. He should stand up for the people who elected him.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! The honourable member for Murrumbidgee will cease interjecting.
Ms NOREEN HAY: Members opposite should support the New South Wales Government in trying to get back the $3 billion GST rip off. That would help us to assist the people whom members opposite continually claim to defend. Members opposite think that the $3 billion is an excuse. That is because they do not want to tell their mates in Canberra that they should give us back the money. No-one else thinks that it is an excuse. No-one else in New South Wales believes that the ripoff of $3 billion from the New South Wales taxpayers to subsidise the other States is an excuse. Indeed, they think the Opposition should be joining the New South Wales Government and Australian Business Ltd in going to Canberra to request that the Federal Government give us a fairer share of that money; then, by keeping people covered by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, we can look after workers entitlements. Perhaps if we got the money back we could employ a few more teachers. I ask members opposite to recall how many teachers the last Coalition Government sacked. How many public servants did the Coalition Government look after? The last Coalition Government sacked 2,500 teachers. Members opposite are not friends of the workers, the teachers, the police, the nurses, or the health system.
Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [8.57 p.m.]: I support the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill and the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill. Why do I do that? I do that because, unlike the New South Wales Opposition, which is willing to blindly hand over the rights and conditions that the workers of this State have fought for over many years to an ideologically driven Federal Government, Government members support the workers and workers' rights. Premier Iemma and the Government—and, indeed, all Government members—will oppose the radical and destructive changes every step of the way. And this is a vital step in keeping public servants under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission.
Why do I know this? Unlike the member opposite who said that he did not have time to undertake research, I have done my research over the past year and a half. Why? Because I have been listening to the people of Penrith—listening to the mums, the grandmothers, the uncles and aunts, and the brothers and sisters of Penrith, all of whom have major concerns about the WorkChoices legislation. Penrith locals are not convinced by the Prime Minister's "My guarantee is my record" mantra. We have taken a closer look at his record—the children overboard, weapons of mass destruction—and the clincher since the election is the WorkChoices legislation, which was tabled and debated within 24 hours. The Federal member for Lindsay supported the legislation, not the workers in her electorate. Shame! One of the first persons to come to my Pollie in the Park meeting when that legislation was proposed was a TAFE teacher's wife concerned about her husband's conditions in the TAFE system. It is good to see that these bills cover the TAFE system as well as ambulance officers and those mentioned by the Deputy Premier.
The WorkChoices legislation has an impact on all workers. Considering that tomorrow is International Women's Day, tonight I stress the impact it will have on women. International Women's Day was founded at the beginning of last century when women were looking at their rights and their conditions in various workplaces. International Women's Day became official with unionists in Germany. Another group that has been overlooked is the group with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Workers who do not have English as their first language and who traditionally could be in a low-paid area have not been factored in. People in those two groups will have a major impact in our electorates.
Despite changes in the work force and in industrial relations systems, women are still paid comparatively less. There is no pay equity for women in 2006. Women made up 75 per cent of all part-time employees in 1995. Many women in New South Wales are casual employees. Casual and part-time workers may not find the voice they require when they are negotiating individual contracts. I have spoken to many women in the Penrith electorate who have been part-time or casual workers. One was sacked for not signing an individual agreement. She questioned what her contract would provide as compared with what her award would provide and she was shown the door the next day. So, many women will not be in a good bargaining position.
What I am saying is backed up by recent media articles. In November last year, Leon Gettler of the Age wrote that with the new Federal WorkChoices legislation there will be winners and losers. Under the right conditions they might earn a motzer, better than they did collectively, but it will be a different story when a competitive and flexible workplace puts pressure on everyone to negotiate working hours and leave. It is even harder when it is based on the legislation that was supposed to be simple. WorkChoices is 691 pages of legislation and reads like it has been designed by a committee of power-drunk people, supported by the Prime Minister, who has the balance of power.
Leon Gettler identified in his article that bosses have been identified as the big winners, but many businesses will struggle to understand a law of unfathomable language and convoluted definitions. He also noted you can take your pick of the losers but women have been identified as one of the likely groups. He agreed with what Melbourne Business School of Management Professor Mara Olekans also wrote in the Age last year, that women could be at a disadvantage. Whereas men see power in terms of rank and dominance, women focus on networks and relationships. In other words, power for men is about position, status and independence while for women it seems to be more about influence and interaction. According to Olekans, that means women may be less likely to drive a hard bargain because it might damage the relationship they are in.
Studies in the United States of America have also supported this view. I acknowledge Marian Baird from the Work and Organisational Studies School of Business at the University of Sydney. Her issues paper "Things fall apart" specifically relates to the WorkChoices legislation. Working NSW and Marian Baird held discussions with people from many different communities—local community groups, unions, and also churches—about the proposed changes to the industrial relations legislation. They outlined a number of themes. One was family and work.
The faith communities were represented by leaders of the Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and Uniting communities. Working NSW held a roundtable with the faith communities and I also held a faith community meeting in Penrith. What was shown in Marian Baird's studies was reflected in the statements those faith communities made. Representatives of the Anglican, Catholic, Uniting, and Assemblies of God communities attended the Penrith faith forum. They spoke strongly at these forums about the connection between work and families in Australia. Concerns were voiced about further deregulation of the labour market and how increased control by employers to direct the hours and place of work might negatively impact on family and community norms.
Seven specific issues relating to changes in working conditions were raised. These related to the impact on families' lives and ultimately the effect on the communities in which we live. One of the issues was family time and the need for the day of rest. Someone who has annualised hours of work may not get a day of rest within the working week. A person might work 70 hours one week and none the next. Annualisation will have a major impact on the day of rest. Time poverty is emerging as a real and pressing issue for workers and their families. The distribution, regularity and predictability of work will have a major impact. The other issue that came through was the right to fair and decent work. There needs to be satisfaction, reward and purpose of work. The WorkChoices legislation will have a major impact on them.
The fourth issue is women and motherhood, production and reproduction. Australia's birth rate now stands at 1.7 per cent, which is among the lowest in the western world. Coupled with the aging of the work force this is a cause for concern. At this rate, without immigration, Australia cannot renew its population or its work force. Consequently, more demands are placed upon women to enter the work force and have more children. This places a double burden on women. Comparative studies have shown that countries that facilitate motherhood-work transition and provide supportive work and family policies have higher birth rates than those that do not. Compared to most other countries, Australia has poor parental leave policies. There is a need for better policy making in this area. The five conditions of the WorkChoices legislation will impact on parental leave conditions in New South Wales.
Attention was drawn to the following issues that directly affect women and which require greater attention to public policy. They are: the ability to combine work and motherhood; factors influencing birth rates; the appropriate recognition and importance of children and childbearing to the community and social wellbeing; and workers with caring responsibilities—this probably refers to people in the work force who have outside caring duties, not just for children but for aging parents, siblings or family members. Childcare expenses need to be outlined as well. They are some of the issues that were raised by Marian Baird that I commend to the House.
Part of the WorkChoices legislation is abolition of protection from unfair dismissal for 400 million workers employed in companies with fewer than 100 staff. Individual contracts will mean reductions in take-home pay and employment conditions. The changes to minimum wages are set to reduce them and to replace the award safety net with just five minimum conditions. Up for grabs could be wage rates based on skill levels, limits on when people can be required to work, overtime pay, weekend or night work rates, work-related allowances, annual leave loadings and redundancy pay. WorkChoices will also keep unions out of workplaces and reduce the capacity of workers to bargain collectively. The Boeing workers at Newcastle have not been allowed to collectively bargain and we have already heard about the impact that has had on their lives.
The taking away of the powers of the independent Federal Industrial Relations Commission is a great worry. It is putting the third umpire under the control of the Federal Minister, politicising the commission. Instead of a third-party advocating on industrial relations there will be a commission that is wholly formed by a Federal Minister at the time. The legislation can also be amended by the Minister without going to Parliament. This is absolutely disgraceful in the view of the State Government. As the honourable member for Wollongong stated, a number of people in the community are not happy, John. They are not happy with the legislation and have formed groups. They are not unionists. They might be members of a union now but they certainly were not members when they started. People are concerned about the effects not just on this generation but future generations.
As I mentioned, in the middle of last year there was a work meeting at Penrith RSL. We had to open another room because of the overflow. The crowd went down the corner and around the street. Many thousands of concerned people were at that first mass meeting. I rode the train to the Last Weekend that started at Penrith and travelled all stops to Homebush. I managed to visit most carriages to speak to the people—many were grandparents—about Federal Government changes to industrial relations legislation. There have been street stalls and stalls at soccer games and netball games. At Penrith Festival last year at the Your Right to Work stand Tim Brunero, the runner-up on Big Brother, supported the campaign. He signed autographs and shook hands. It was a great time to raise awareness of the changes. There have been workplace meetings. Bernie Banton addressed nurses and other workers at Nepean Hospital. The firies and the Volunteer Rescue Association have expressed their views and rallies have been held outside the offices of Federal members of Parliament. [Time expired.]
Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [9.12 p.m.]: I support the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill and the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bills is generally, firstly, to insulate certain New South Wales public sector employees from the new, so-called, Federal Government WorkChoices legislation and to preserve the conciliatory and arbitral role of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. Like many speakers before me, I congratulate the Premier and Minister Della Bosca on moving decisively and swiftly to do the right thing, to do the Labor thing, to look after the working people of New South Wales, the people who have delivered and continue to deliver services to the residents of New South Wales. This is another example—as if we needed one—of this Government's proven ability to make the big decisions that are needed to preserve the living standards of the people that the Government of New South Wales is charged to look after. As I stand here I have to note that there is not a single member of the Opposition in the Chamber. I see the honourable member for Wakehurst and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga racing into the Chamber smiling as if to add to the insult—
Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I just point out that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and I were listening very intently to the honourable member.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! That is not a point of order.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The members were not in the Chamber. If any example were needed, that is another example of the disdain the Opposition holds for public servants in New South Wales. I had to laugh at the trifling and lacklustre contribution of the honourable member for Gosford. Apart from his effort of plagiarising the Prime Minister's line about being the workers' best friend, we heard curiously about the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, the Toukley ambulance station and the alleged lack of care by the New South Wales Government for public servants. Most of all we heard from the honourable member for Gosford, and before him the honourable member for Epping, a whole heap of bleating about the lack of time that has been given to the Opposition to scrutinise the bills. The truth is that the Opposition could have been given six months to scrutinise the bills—
Mr Bryce Gaudry: Or a year.
Mr MICHAEL DALEY: Or a year. The result would have been the same. How do we know that? Because the Opposition's runs are on the board with respect to issues such as these, issues that require Opposition members to depart from the example set by the Howard Government. On the great GST rip-off they were missing in action. On the Iemma Government's launch of a High Court challenge to Howard's industrial relations laws once again they have fallen into line with John Howard. On protection for the State's rice growers the position is the same. Bob Carr and Morris Iemma chased the corporate criminals from James Hardie halfway around the world without any help from the Opposition. The Opposition has been reduced by the Howard Government to the role of a provincial lapdog. It will not depart on any issues from the Howard Government position. This will be to its eternal shame, and ultimately will be its undoing in March 2007.
The ultimate hypocrisy from the honourable member for Gosford was to say, "We are the true friends of the public service." How then does the honourable member for Gosford wish to explain away the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition last week that he would get rid of 29,000 public servants? That cannot be explained away, nor can his further insult which labels the subject matter of these bills as illusory issues. That is what the honourable member for Gosford and the Opposition categorise the workplace rights of New South Wales public servants as—illusory issues. It is another damning indictment of the weakness and lack of fitness to govern of the Leader of the Opposition and the people who sit behind him. The honourable member for Gosford said, "We will look after the public servants of New South Wales." This is a curious statement to say the least. If the Opposition had its way the bills would not have been introduced into the Parliament and the High Court challenge of Morris Iemma and the New South Wales Government, which is the last hope of the workers of this nation, would not have been launched. The result would have been that New South Wales public servants would ultimately have been transferred into the Federal industrial relations system.
I would like the Leader of the Opposition to show some courtesy to the workers of this State, to come into the Chamber and explain away how the following measures would see them better off. I would like him to explain how a change to workplace agreements so that they no longer contain minimum award redundancy standards would help them. Workers who are made redundant and retrenched due to the operational requirements of a business will not be able to claim unfair dismissal no matter what the size of the workplace is. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to show some leadership for the first time, at least since my election to this place, and tell us how getting rid of work rights such as weekend, shift and public holiday overtime, redundancy pay and allowances would help the workers of New South Wales.
I would like the Leader of the Opposition to explain how stopping the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, from setting minimum wage rates would help the public servants of New South Wales. Opposition members are not present in the Chamber because they cannot explain away any of these issues; they have simply fallen into line with John Howard. How can replacing the award safety net with just five minimum conditions help the workers of New South Wales? How can removing any requirements for agreements to be consistent with award rights and stripping down agreements to just five minimum conditions—a minimum hourly rate, 10 days sick leave, two weeks annual leave, two weeks of annual leave that can be cashed out, unpaid parental leave and a maximum number of weekly working hours—help the public servants of New South Wales?
How can preserving a 38-hour week in theory but not paying extra for overtime, weekends, shift work or public holidays help the public servants of New South Wales? I am at a loss to explain. How can it help workers if we remove protection of important rights, such as limits on when one can be required to work, overtime pay, weekend or night work rates, work-related allowances and annual leave loading? I am waiting with bated breath to see whether any member of the Opposition has the courage to stand up and try to sell that notion to the people of New South Wales.
The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill is also a very important part of the legislation that has been introduced tonight. Australia's State and Federal industrial relations commissions have acted as the independent umpires in workplaces in this country for more than a century, settling industrial disputes and establishing the decent minimum standards enjoyed by all workers. These commissions have provided an independent forum, an avenue for ordinary working people to take their disputes to if things go wrong with their employer. The industrial relations commission is a unique Australian invention. It is one of the reasons that Australian workplaces are safer and fairer than those in other countries, such as the United States. It is one of the factors that have contributed to our unique Australian way of life. It has protected living standards; it has provided security. It is a truism of life that if one feels insecure at work, that feeling pervades one's day-to-day living.
I do not believe that anyone deserves to live under the spectre of workplace insecurity. It should not happen in a society like ours, and the Labor Government we will ensure that it does not. The Howard Government wants to abolish all State industrial relations commissions and to remove powers from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Federal Government does not want the commission to set minimum wages, to help resolve industrial disputes or to consider any new award conditions. That is why the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill is a crucial piece of legislation. It is classic Labor and it makes me feel proud to be a member of this Government—a Government that will not forsake its public servants. I support this legislation.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [9.23 p.m.]: All the speeches made by Government members have been excellent; they have demonstrated real passion. I will excuse my good mate the honourable member for Gosford on this occasion because I have seen him fired up over the past four years, particularly when he enjoyed a larger majority in his electorate. He was good; he would give the old Chainsaw a run for his money. If journalists from the Sydney Morning Herald were in the gallery, they would give him a rap because he did not do a bad job. He did not lose his voice as often in those days. He was pretty good. The speeches we have heard tonight, without interruptions from the Opposition, have been good because the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill and the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill go to the heart of what Government members believe compared to what Opposition members believe.
These bills provide an excellent demonstration of why this Labor Government is the only government in all the States and Territories of Australia that looks after the workers' interests, not just blue-collar workers, not just unionists, but all workers. John Howard employs the trick of giving legislation euphemistic titles, like WorkChoices. We understand that tactic. "WorkChoices" means workers have no choice at all. "Weapons of mass destruction" means Dick Cheney shooting his mate on a rooster hunt somewhere in Texas. It is a euphemism. The idea is that if he uses a nice title we will believe. There is no work choice under the Howard legislation. WorkChoices means no choice. Polls indicate that virtually no-one believes that he or she will be better off under John Howard's WorkChoices legislation.
John Howard's accidental control of the Senate has delivered his life-long ambition of smashing ordinary workers' rights. He is aiming the legislation not only at the "evil" building workers, seamen and waterside workers—the usual suspects that the Opposition detests—but also teachers, nurses, ambulance officers, police officers, fire brigade personnel, university lecturers, the wider public service and the people who work in this Parliament. The staff sitting in this place tonight and the Hansard reporters will have their rights stripped away if we do not enact this legislation. They are the people John Howard is after_that is, anyone referred to as a public servant or an ordinary worker.
John Howard is doing this so that company share values will increase. When I was a kid we would watch the television news and then the sports report. Now we watch the news and then five minutes of drivel about the share market. There is no point putting money into the bank because the interest rate is only 1 per cent. On the other hand, buying bank shares could produce a million-dollar profit. It is outrageous. That is the sort of society John Howard is creating. We are a meaner society. We are looking after number one and suffering from the "I'm all right Jack syndrome". That was very well demonstrated in a great 1950s movie starring Peter Sellers. It has never been more true than it is in Australia today. The shame rests with the Federal Parliament for passing the WorkChoices legislation.
Hundreds of thousands of Australian workers will be affected by the Howard Government's legislation. The WorkChoices legislation will eventually lead to a United States-style industrial relations system. There may be more workers and John Howard may be able to say that the Federal Government has created a couple of hundred thousand jobs, but we know how he will have achieved that. Many people will be working part time and for tips and gratuities. They will be working back because the boss has given a wink and a nudge to some young secretary that it is about time she stayed back and did a little extra work. We will see what happens in that situation, because it will not be long before the Howard Government abolishes all the other protections we have established to ensure fair play in the workplace. That will happen. People in my electorate have complained about it already.
As I said, there may be more workers, but their conditions will have been driven down and more people will be working for less. People working in countries that do not have the protections enjoyed by Australian workers until now often depend on tips. They do not get a real wage; they get a couple of dollars an hour and then they over service customers. Waiting staff in restaurants lavish attention on diners and then expect a big tip. That is what John Howard's WorkChoices legislation will mean. It will produce a class of working poor and what Americans derisively refer to as "trailer trash" communities on the outskirts of towns. The inhabitants cannot get jobs because poverty perpetuates itself. The poorer these people become the less capable they are to escape their poverty. They cannot get a job because they cannot afford health care, decent clothes, glasses or dental care. As a result, they are unemployable. That is what will happen.
People in my electorate have already approached me about this issue. Under Howard's way—hopefully it will be Howard's end—people will be continually ripped off. Older workers will see their employment terminated and younger workers will be exploited. If honourable members do not believe that, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. While there are many good bosses, they are good because of the industrial relations system that has worked in this country for more than 100 years to modify not only outrageous union and worker behaviour but also outrageous boss behaviour. That system will no longer exist.
The Federal legislation is aimed not only at unions. We know that that is the Federal Government's and John Howard's aim. It is also aimed at getting workers, and it is easier to smash the lowly paid workers. We see many lowly paid workers dragged up in front of some court for doing something terrible. However, the media constantly carries reports of eastern suburbs trendies being dragged into court with their barristers and silks at $5,000 a day for having ripped off the system. HIH and FAI come to mind, as does Bradley Cooper and the James Hardie group. That group still has not come to the party after a year or two of former Premier Carr and Premier Iemma fighting tooth and nail to look after workers affected by asbestos. I refer honourable members to the Boeing workers in Newcastle. They have been on strike for 265 days and Boeing will not even talk to them. Boeing is one of the biggest multinational companies in the world.
Older workers will have their employment terminated; younger workers will be exploited. I have already referred to cases of young people being ripped off in my electorate. The Howard Government has given many bosses the green light to bad behaviour. I think everyone understands what I mean by "green light"_it is "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. You get on with what you like." As other Government members have said, John Howard will not hear about it because it never quite gets to him. It does not matter how many pieces of paper cross the Federal Parliament, John Howard has a sign that says, "Don't tell me. Forget the hearing aids. Don't tell me because if I don't know I don't have to get up and tell a lie." Did honourable members see John Howard's body language on television recently? Kerry O'Brien asked, "Are you good at telling lies?", and John Howard said, "No, I'm not really good at telling lies. I don't tell them real well." We saw an outrageous performance from John Howard. One could tell that he had told many lies; every time he tells a lie he has some sort of facial tic and his shoulders move up and down. We know when he is lying, and he is lying about WorkChoices. There is no choice.
Last year an 18-year-old in my electorate, who was studying for the Higher School Certificate [HSC], was working 55 hours a week but was being paid for 40 hours. I asked, "Why are you doing this, son? Get your act together on the HSC." I know his family situation well; they needed that 40 hours of pay. However, he was working 55 hours a week. I know of a young girl who lives in my electorate and works in Peakhurst. She worked two four-hour shifts at a restaurant in Peakhurst, allegedly on a trial basis, and she was not paid. She was told, "No, we do not need you. Sorry, you were okay but you don't get paid because it was only a trial." I bet she is not the first and she will not be the last that that will happen to. That boss will wheel through the system, not paying at all while WorkChoices is his protection.
Mr Brad Hazzard: That is the current system.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: I will come to that in a minute. The Federal Government has given bosses the green light. This boss has got the message. Other constituents are concerned that their young daughters, wives and girlfriends will be targeted by unscrupulous bosses. Let us not forget that the Federal Government spent almost $55 million advertising the WorkChoices legislation before it had been passed by the Federal Parliament. What an outrage! If that money had come to New South Wales via the GST formula_a corrupt formula_we would have better schools, be able to do maintenance on some railway tracks, be able to employ more nurses. We could do a whole raft of things with $55 million. What does John Howard do with the booming surplus he has created by ripping off New South Wales? He spends it on advertisements. That is outrageous!
The WorkChoices benefits were announced before they were passed. However, when the polls were taken no-one believed them. People are not as silly as some would like to think. The John Howard-stacked High Court found this expenditure to be beyond its brief and could not look at it. Let us hope that the State's challenge to WorkChoices, which is before the High Court, gets a fairer hearing. WorkChoices overturns 100 years of an Australian arbitration system. The Coalition says it is conservative and it brags about being conservative. However, when it comes to workers' rights it is ruthlessly radical. Let us not forget that the Coalition ripped up tradition in 1975 by sacking a Prime Minister and having its leader appointed Prime Minister. Coalition members go on about what radicals those on the Labor side of politics are, but they are the biggest hypocrites.
The Fair Pay Commissioner and the Treasurer have already indicated that wages will be set taking into account other factors, which are very loosely termed. For example, work performed might be looked at, as would skills needed and maybe hours worked. However, the commissioner will also examine other matters. Now what could they be? Perhaps the money a person already has in the bank. Maybe the boss will say, "Your job requires that you earn $1,000 a week or so. But you are not really poor; you have a bit of super. Maybe we will give you $500." The boss might say, "I heard you won the lottery, so we are going to dock your wages next week." Maybe a boss will say, "You are likely to inherit some property, mate. Maybe you do not need this amount of money." Maybe a boss will say, "You have some wealthy brothers and sisters. We will not have to worry about paying you quite so much." That is what this new Fair Pay Commissioner and the Treasurer have said they will look at_ not just the work a person does, but outside factors pertaining to what income and support that person might get through family, a war widows pension, some legacy support or even support from the Red Cross. They are going to factor all that into the wage an employee gets.
As I said earlier, the honourable member for Gosford usually makes a pretty good effort. However, he was going through the motions tonight. To his credit, he turned up and spoke. I notice that the Opposition Whip is sitting outside the Chamber—that is probably not a bad move. To his credit, the honourable member for Wakehurst is always up for a bit of a struggle. He came in and said a few words to interrupt. I appreciate that he did that. Opposition members have gone absent without leave. Their policy is to sack 29,000 front-line public service employees, but they do not know where those employees will come from. When asked, the Leader of the Opposition said, "I'll get back to you on that." Honourable members should have heard the interview of the Leader of the Opposition by Virginia Trioli on 702 ABC the other day. It was embarrassing. When Virginia Trioli put questions to the Leader of the Opposition about the cross-city tunnel, he ducked and weaved. He ducked and weaved more than the honourable member for Clarence does when he is punching the bag in the gym—and he is not bad at ducking and weaving. The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely deplorable. I thought, "Hang on. We do not want to overdo this bloke, we want him here for the next 12 months", otherwise we would be going for it even harder.
The Opposition has no answers; it has no policy. The Leader of the Opposition said, "We are not in government, what can I do?" Virginia Trioli kept saying, "But, hang on, you want to be in government. Say something." The Leader of the Opposition said, "No, I will get back to you. We have to open the roads." She asked, "What happens when you open them?" He said, " I will get back to you. I will let you know." That has to be the worst Opposition performance I have ever heard on a public radio. I urge everyone in this Parliament to get a hold of a transcript of that interview, to read the words and to realise why the Opposition has no future, why Opposition members are not in the Chamber tonight.
Our legislation will isolate as many workers as possible from the Federal Government's destructive Act. Under the Public Sector Employment Amendment Bill, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the State Transit Authority and TAFE workers will be employed by the New South Wales Government in the service of the Crown. We hope that will quarantine these workers from the clutches of Howard's evil hands. Health workers also will be protected. All the Government speakers have spoken passionately and persuasively. Opposition members dogged the debate. As I said, the honourable member for Gosford had a bit of a go. Normally he gets quite wound up about this. Perhaps we should have heard the new star in the firmament of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Epping, who we all love and should bring a lozenge for. I saw Sydney Morning Herald journalists in the gallery today cacking themselves because their man is having a go. But where is he tonight? He has dogged it too.
The Industrial Relations Amendment Bill will also provide a further protection for employees. The bottom line is this: only the New South Wales Labor Government and the Labor Opposition in Canberra stand up for workers. We stand up not just for unionists but for all workers. I congratulate the Iemma Government, the Minister for Finance, every Labor member who believes in this passionately, and every Labor member who has spoken tonight—or would have done so, if we had more time to debate this issue.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [9.38 p.m.]: I support the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill and the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill. As my colleagues have pointed out, these bills are about the protection of the rights of public sector workers and the rights of all workers in New South Wales against the Howard industrial relations legislation. I am not surprised that we have not heard from the Opposition, apart from the honourable member for Gosford. His memory would be long enough for him to realise that the Howard Government's legislation reflects very carefully the industrial relations legislation that was introduced into this House by the former Greiner Government in September 1991. I reflected on that when I made my first speech in this House. It is instructive, and I will quote some of it. On 17 September 1991 I said in that speech:
… first, its attack on the democratic rights and working conditions of the people of New South Wales, and its determination to remove the protective influence of the organised trade union movement; and, second, the mistaken belief of the Government that the passage of the bill will create a better industrial climate to make our industries more cost efficient and competitive. This just will not happen. The provisions of the bill will destroy 10 years of co-operative work between government, management and the trade union movement to develop a more flexible multiskilled workforce with present section 11 industrial agreements.
This bill will turn order into chaos. The workers of the State accept the need for the changes in work practices and reskilling necessary to make this country cost competitive. They will not accept a process that drives wages and conditions down to subsistence level. They will not give away their right to organise and the democratic right to withdraw their labour when they are being exploited in the workplace.
I went on to talk about the fact, as the previous speaker said, that this industrial relations approach by the Howard Government, and its craven acceptance by the Opposition, will increase the pressure on disadvantaged workers—women and workers in low paid industries—to take lower wages. It will increase the amount of work they will do beyond what will be expected by the five minimum standards under the Federal industrial relations legislation and allow them to be further exploited. As was mentioned earlier by speakers from this side, the classic example of the implementation of the Howard agenda, which is accepted by the Opposition, is the treatment of the Boeing workers at Williamtown.
Those workers were not originally members of a union. They had accepted the Howard Government's approach of having workplace agreements and then went to individual contracts. They saw that this led to an unfair approach to the work force by the employer, who used the disproportionate power of the human relations department against each individual worker under a proposed WorkChoices approach. The reality is that there is work—that is the worker's side of it—and the employer has the choice. The worker either accepts the choice or he does not have the work. That is a simple arrangement and a disproportionate use of power.
The Boeing workers sought a collective agreement and union coverage. Over a nine-month period, with great strength of character and the enormous support of the Hunter Valley community, the trade union movement generally, the Australian Labor Party and members of the Government, those workers waged a long and difficult struggle. Of course, when they went back to work at the end of that nine-month period they faced the workplace agreement approach of Boeing and the Federal Government: "You come back under exactly the same system as before, you either agree to that or you do not have a job." That is the disadvantage of the proposed Federal system and the downward pressure it creates. Already within the building and construction area of the trade union movement major employers are walking away from existing agreements and cutting workers' wages and conditions.
This is classic Labor legislation, focused on the protection of workers, giving them rights under the industrial relations laws of this State, and insulating public sector employees from the Federal industrial relations system by making them employees of the New South Wales Government in the service of the Crown. The Government is committed to this legislation to ensure the protection of those workers so that their working conditions are not eroded. We do not want them to be placed in a detrimental relationship under WorkChoices at the Federal level. We do not want them subject to five minimum conditions of employment. We do not want them to suffer an impact on their holidays, their hours of work or their capacity to operate as community members and family members.
Surely members of the Opposition must support this legislation. It protects those who teach in their schools, work in their hospitals, provide their emergency services, drive their ambulances, and protect the community that we all enjoy. We say those people demand and deserve the protection of the industrial relations approach that has been crafted by the Labor Government in its decade in power and which overcame—reverting to my original point—the philosophical approach of the Greiner Government, which was trying to put into effect the very industrial relations regime that the Howard Government has now introduced. I urge members opposite to join with us in supporting the Public Sector Employment Legislation Amendment Bill and the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill. I thank the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Premier for bringing forward this legislation. I commend the bills to the House.
Mr JOHN WATKINS (Ryde—Deputy Premier, and Minister for Transport) [9.46 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The New South Wales Labor Government strongly opposes the Commonwealth's WorkChoices legislation and the impact it will have on the working conditions and living standards of ordinary Australians. The Government supports an industrial relations system that promotes fairness and equity and supports employers and employees in making decisions about the workplace. By introducing this legislation the Iemma Government is protecting its employees from the impact of the Commonwealth's industrial relations reforms.
These bills will ensure the continued application of the State industrial relations system for key front-line public sector employees such as nurses, ambulance staff, TAFE teachers and support staff, home care workers and other employees of statutory corporations. In addition, importantly, it will facilitate good industrial relations practice for our community at large by amending the Industrial Relations Act to provide for the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commissioner to conciliate and arbitrate in circumstances where a common law contractual agreement entered into by the parties allows the conversion of enterprise consent awards to agreements. Some minor administrative changes to the operation of the Industrial Relations Commission will ensure that the commission can be more responsive to the needs of parties.
The industrial relations system in New South Wales works. It works well. We have a co-operative industrial relations environment in this State. We wish to protect and have that extended. There have been some comments in the debate about the need to expedite these bills. That has been caused by the Federal Government. The short time frames have been dictated by the Federal Government. Without any clarity about the commencement of WorkChoices or the content or timing of the WorkChoices regulations, we have been placed in the situation where this might be our last opportunity to provide a legislative response to WorkChoices to the extent that we can. Our preference would have been for a more measured and considered approach after seeing the regulations. Identifying consent awards as agreements for constitutional corporations is particularly time critical. For those provisions to have effect they must be enacted before WorkChoices commences. If they are not, potentially hundreds of agreements for future wage increases that have been reached at the enterprise level will be lost.
Further, the Government is legislating now to ensure that those public sector employees who could be covered by WorkChoices legislation will remain with the State industrial relations system. By seeking to have these bills passed prior to the commencement of WorkChoices the Iemma Government is seeking to avoid any potential confusion or complexities. The passage of this legislation will ensure that these workers are not transferred to the Federal industrial relations system. WorkChoices is bad law. It is bad for our country, our workers and for New South Wales families. New South Wales has a Labor Government—the Iemma Labor Government. One of its prime purposes is to protect the workers and families of this State. The legislation introduced and debated this evening in this House is designed to do that. I thank all members who have taken part in this debate.
Motion agreed to.
Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:14 : Update this page