Page 648 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which talks about the new IR reforms and states that the release of the Work Choices legislation will come into effect on Monday, 27 March 2006—yesterday, for those of us who are unaware of the date.
It is also stated that, with the exception of prohibited matters identified in terms that I have yet to inform the chamber of and the changes to unfair dismissal provisions, it appears that the terms and conditions of pre-reform state and federal awards and agreements will remain largely unchanged in the short term. According to information available on the Australian government’s web site, pre-reform state awards become notional agreements preserving state awards, NAPSAs, in the new federal system of industrial relations. The terms and conditions of employment in the former state awards become preserved entitlements and remain in NAPSAs. A NAPSA will include any term and condition of employment in the original state award, with the exception of wage classification structures.
Pre-reform state agreements become preserved state agreements, PSAs. A PSA will include any term and condition of employment that was in the original state agreement, with the exception of wage and classification structures. Employees bound by federal awards immediately before the commencement of Work Choices will continue to be bound by the conditions of their particular award. Employees bound by federal agreements made before the commencement will continue to operate under the conditions of particular agreements unless the agreement is terminated or replaced by a new agreement.
We also heard from witnesses of their concerns. Those voiced include the loss of penalty rates, overtime payments and shift allowances; the actual loss of job security and career prospects; the potential for working hours to be increased; a loss of family-friendly conditions; a lack of bargaining power for the average worker; the removal of unfair dismissal laws for a substantial section of the work force; an increase in social inequality and negative social outcomes; and the reduction of powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Those were just a few of the concerns expressed in the hearings of the committee.
It is important to note that the terms of reference of the inquiry are more extensive than is touched on in this report. When the committee advertised its hearings and wrote to numerous organisations, it became clear that industrial relations was the area that those who gave submissions and evidence chose to focus on. Accordingly, recommendation 1 seeks to refine the committee’s terms of reference to that which is listed in recommendation 2.
I wish to comment now on the report and the submissions received and evidence given. As highlighted in the report, the federal government formally indicated in May of last year its intention to drastically amend federal workplace relations legislation. Some five months later the specific changes were disclosed to the public. So, after five months of waiting, of having to witness the federal government’s appalling advertising campaign, we all got to see Work Choices—all of us, including the industrial relations ministers from all states and territories.
That was highlighted in evidence given by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Ms Katy Gallagher, about the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, which is the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .