Page 4552 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
months for refusing to answer questions. An employer can face prosecution for not reporting the incident. I say it again: so much for deregulation!
The rules and regulations within the act make it impossible for employees and employers to negotiate wages and conditions as they see fit. The act makes industry practice of construction project agreements unenforceable, restricting the fundamental right to collectively bargain. To clarify, for those in the opposition: should employees seek to ensure that all workers on a site receive the same penalty loadings or the same access to family friendly provisions, tough luck. Should an employer seek a minimum standard across his or her enterprise, tough luck.
The federal government was not content to wait until the legislation was passed by both houses to start its tough-luck strategy. Since January 2005, that is, two months before the introduction of the so-called improvement bill, workplace relations minister Kevin Andrews has written to building and construction industry employees, employers and employer groups on three separate occasions. On each occasion the minister urged employers not to enter into enterprise agreements with unions. The minister stressed that those employers who entered into such agreements ran the risk of being excluded from federal government construction projects as they may contravene the national code of practice. The national code of practice goes some way to investigating safety in the building industry. However, Mr Andrews’ intent did not surround compliance with workplace safety. It was about threatening employers away from union agreements.
On one hand, we have a government minister crying foul about the coercive union movement, hell bent on anarchy, whilst threatening employers with exclusion from future contracts. This is outrageous. This is hypocrisy at its most blatant. This legislation is beyond outrageous; it is dangerous. It puts at risk those most vulnerable in a high-risk industry.
Young workers in the building and construction industry rely on the guidance and support of more experienced workers to ensure that their workplace is safe. Young workers rely on their more experienced colleagues to speak up about unsafe practices. By restricting rights to collectively bargain on a worksite, this government has restricted the rights of young workers to a safe working environment. By placing the onus of proof on young workers, this government has sought to silence young workers.
The federal government had an opportunity to increase safety in the building and construction industry. They had an opportunity to punish those employers who willingly and knowingly placed workers’ lives at risk. But like their colleagues here in the opposition who had an opportunity to support industrial manslaughter legislation, the federal government continues to show its disregard for working people in this country.
This legislation, the precursor for WorkChoices, punishes those 17,000 workers here in the ACT, with no justification, no legitimate reason for doing so. It strips them of fundamental rights to organise and places restrictions on their ability to defend workplace safety.
Today we have an opportunity. The opposition has the opportunity to redeem itself. We all have the opportunity to give a clear message to the federal government and those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .