Family First Additional Comments
Family First wants to get the industrial relations balance
right, by making sure that workers and their families are not ripped-off, that
businesses can be competitive and that the economy can continue to grow.
Back in 2005, Family First was in fact the first political
party to expose the holes in the Howard Government’s Work Choices law[1]
because we understood the effect this legislation would have on ordinary
Australians and their families. That's why Family First voted against Work
Choices because it got the balance wrong and workers could be easily
ripped-off.
In this inquiry we are considering the Rudd Government's Transition
to Forward with Fairness Bill 2008 and Family First is back on the case
again asking the tough questions to ensure this time we get the balance right.
The Transition to Forward with Fairness Bill 2008 is principally
designed to stop new Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) being made, but it
also sets up the arrangements for moving forward to the Rudd Government's new
workplace relations regime.
Family First has some concerns with the structure of the new
workplace relations system as it may not adequately protect all workers and it
may not adequately protect family time from the ever encroaching demands of
work.
Family First has long been concerned that there are not
adequate safeguards in place to help protect family time from the time demands
of work.
The industrial relations system proposed by the Government sets
ten overarching National Employment Standards.[2]
and ten minimum standards that must be included in the proposed modern awards.
But the ten points in the National Employment Standards do not
include ensuring workers and their families have a meal break, nor do they
include penalty rates for working anti-family hours. Instead, meal breaks and
penalty rates are to be included in the ten minimum standards for modern awards.
This means there is a danger that workers and their families
not employed under awards will not have their meal breaks and penalty rates
protected.
Dr John Buchanan from the University of Sydney said there had
been "... identified 10 per cent to 15 per cent outside the award system
altogether. We already know there are 10 per cent to 15 per cent on overawards.
You are talking between 20 per cent and 30 per cent already outside the system.
That is a big issue."[3]
When asked for an estimate of how many workers earning less
than $100,000 would be outside the award system and therefore could only rely
on the proposed ten minimum conditions in the National Employment Standards, Mr
Kovacic from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations,
stated "tens of thousands ... and I think 100,000 would be very much the
upper limit."[4]
Up to 100,000 people is a significant number to fall through
the cracks.
There is doubt that the Government can find a way to fill in
these cracks. The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association said:
There was a discussion at the ACTU executive meeting earlier
this week—and I am quite happy to talk about this—where it was explained that
it was the intention of the government that under the modernized awards all the
nooks and crannies should be filled. If that can be done that would be good,
but one wonders whether it can be done.[5]
Mr Lennon from Unions NSW said:
there are a number of concerns about the National Employment
Standards and how they operate and how the award system builds on them.
Primarily, our initial position would be that they should be as comprehensive
as possible and cover as many workers as possible. I understand that the remit
or the request to the AIRC is that, in the award modernisation process, they
should ensure that the awards butt up against each other and there are no gaps
that people can fall into. But it is never quite possible to do that.[6]
Awards do not cover everybody, and the National Employment
Standards are to make sure we have a bare basic protection for working
conditions in Australia. Those basic conditions should include meal breaks and
penalty rates.
Why would the government not have those two key provisions in
the National Employment Standards and therefore applying to everybody, so we
are not treating 2am in the morning just the same as 2pm in the afternoon for the purposes of work? The National Employment Standards are designed to be a
real bare basic safety net. If they were not important, the government would
not have suggested them.
Overtime and penalty rates were introduced to help achieve the
eight-hour day. They were intended to discourage employers from employing
workers for more than eight hours a day. They were not introduced to reward
workers for working longer or anti-social hours.
Family First is concerned that conditions such as overtime,
penalty rates for working weekends and anti-family hours, along with meal
breaks and rest breaks, can be traded away for more money. Penalty rates are
about family time, not about money. They were never intended to be traded away
for dollars.
Working long hours is good for the market. Working on weekends
is good for the market and having temporary work also suits the market. But
none of this suits the family, which is why family life is under threat.
Family First is concerned about workers who do not have
bargaining power and who may not be covered by awards. Family First is also
concerned about the subtle pressures that may convince employees to trade away
conditions for money.
Family First was in fact the first political party to expose
the holes in the Howard Government’s Work Choices law[7]
because we understood the effect this legislation would have on ordinary
Australian families. Family First voted against Work Choices and went a
step further and introduced legislation to give back to workers and their
families their public holidays, meal breaks, penalty rates and overtime and to
protect their redundancy, that the Howard Government had taken away.[8]
There were also questions raised during the inquiry about a key
"flexibility clause" that the Government's changes depend on.
The award rationalisation process involves "modern
awards" and all modern awards will be required to include a flexibility
clause. But no one knows what those flexibility clauses will be and that will
not be determined for some months yet.
Mr Stephen Smith from the Australian Industry Group commented
that:
... the [flexibility] clause has not been drafted yet, and I am
sure there will be very different views between us and the unions, even though
there is a lot of goodwill and common understanding about the development of
this new award system.[9]
Unions New South Wales preferred flexibility clauses were not
used at all.[10]
Witnesses declined to draft an example flexibility clause
because of the complex nature of the task.[11]
Given the flexibility clauses will not be available for some
time, it is difficult to make a decision on the legislation before the Senate without
being able to consider the nature of the clause.
These are key issues Family First will consider when voting on
the Transition to Forward with Fairness Bill.
Senator Steve
Fielding
Family First Leader
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page