Page 3869 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
indicator to me of just how well their interests were being looked after under the current system that it took employer representatives, at the request of employers, to formally improve the award conditions for people whose award levels had fallen below social security payments for unemployed people.
This is what we are told is a wonderful system that should not be changed. I am sorry, but I believe that we need to modernise our approach to the workplace. Certainly, what is being proposed at the federal level is part of that.
Leave is to be taken away. We were told by the minister that this is going to happen, but it certainly flies in the face of the published material, which states that these matters will be protected at law.
In terms of bargaining in the workforce and this impression that people are going to have their wages lowered and be terrorised and told take it or leave it: it simply flies in the face of reality in this community in which we live. I had only a few weeks ago the chairman of the Canberra Business Council come in here and tell me the difficulty his own firm was having in recruiting people because of the competitive demands of other employers.
Do you think someone in that position is going to say, “Whoopee, we have got the capacity now to suddenly pay people vastly less; that will solve my problems.” I go into cafes and that in Canberra and people come up to me and say, “Do you know people who can come and work? We cannot get people to come and work here.” I do not think, in that context, that these reforms, which create greater flexibility in negotiating employment terms and giving people the capacity to move outside of a very structured, rigid and outdated system, are suddenly going to see people exploited. We are not talking about 1929 and the depression, with masses of people out of work; we are talking of a situation where we have seen the best economic performance in many years. I feel with confidence that we will continue to see that improve.
The minister also—and it has been in the media, I see—got quite excited about my being briefed. I have offered to facilitate a meeting for the minister if she is seriously interested in talking to the commonwealth. I take quite seriously my duty as a shadow minister to make sure I have regular briefings and meetings with each of the relevant federal ministers who have responsibility for the areas in which I am the opposition spokesman. I find cooperation there.
I have also, as I alluded to yesterday, worked closely with the trade union movement through this issue and have tried to ensure that those points of view are taken into account as well. That may come as a surprise to members opposite. I believe that, in the area of industrial relations, one ought to try to ensure that one can, as best as possible, incorporate the views of the industrial organisations, be they employer or employee.
Ms MacDonald went on about the fact that if the Howard government had its way through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, there would be $50 a week less in people’s pay packets. That really is gilding the story somewhat, knowing full well how the system of industrial relations negotiations has worked in Australia. If it were somebody who had come from a background that knew no better, I would accept that. But Ms MacDonald has had experience, as I understand it, in the labour movement; she
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .