Page 4802 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On 2 November, Kevin Andrews introduced the long-awaited WorkChoices bill in the federal House of Representatives. He probably needed some assistance in carrying the bill into the house, given the 657 pages of the bill and the accompanying 565 pages of explanatory notes. On 14 November, we saw the start of the Senate inquiry into WorkChoices. Over the five days of hearings, senators heard from such wonderful worker advocates—and please note my sarcasm—as John Hart of Restaurant and Catering Australia. Mr Hart’s honesty about his members’ intention to use WorkChoices as a means of reducing wages and entitlements was a breath of fresh air—nothing hidden in their agenda.
The committee had received some 202 formal submissions and, in a sign of things to come, an additional 5,400 brief submissions. I say a sign of things to come because it was on 15 November that half a million workers and their families took to the streets in protest at WorkChoices. Some 5,000 Canberrans met at the Canberra racecourse, and I and my colleagues in the ACT government were proud to be in attendance.
On 28 November, Barnaby Joyce, the Christmas goose, received a petition with 85,189 signatures calling on him to cross the floor and vote against WorkChoices. Then on 7 December, despite ongoing community outrage and against the calls from religious groups, parents groups, community organisations and hundreds of thousands of workers, the Senate passed WorkChoices. What a ride—a ride that ended with a thud!
There are some in the opposition who would think that we should accept this legislation; some, with open arms. There are some in the opposition who would have us think that workers’ concerns are nothing but a furphy. Well, I say, “Get your head out of the sand and smell the resentment.” This motion reflects the community’s fears about their future. This motion understands that the federal government’s WorkChoices changes, now legislated, are designed to reduce ACT workers’ entitlements. It recognises that these changes will have a devastating impact on the relationship between employees and employers. It will further reduce the rights of union members. It will put profit and so-called productivity before workers’ safety.
I do not mind being right; in fact, I actually enjoy it. But I sincerely wish that in this motion I were wrong. I do not enjoy having foresight two months ago about WorkChoices and its intent, nor the effects it will have on ACT working families. And it is families who will suffer from WorkChoices. Gone is any semblance of protecting family-friendly provisions. And what is in its place? Are we to believe the federal government that individual contracts will provide a better means for families to live and work? I think not. And I am supported in my assertion by the finding of the federal government’s own Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. DEWR’s report found that, out of all individual contracts, AWAs, 92 per cent do not provide paid maternity leave, 95 per cent do not provide paid paternity leave and 96 per cent do not provide unpaid purchased leave, such as extra leave during school holidays. The only widely-available family-friendly provisions in the individual contracts are for bereavement leave, and even then it was in only 49 per cent of these secret contracts.
I met with Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward during this timeline. She has warned the federal government that, in threatening collective agreements that provide for the overwhelming majority of paid parental leave, the government is likely to face an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .