Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3870 ..

MR BERRY: They are on individual contracts, aren't they?

Mr Humphries: But they weren't forced there.

MR BERRY: Oh, okay, they are not forced. This is the old Liberal claim of "not forced". "Here is your job. You can have an individual contract. If you don't take the individual contract you can go and work somewhere else." So what do they say?

Mr Humphries: There is no evidence of that whatsoever, Wayne.

MR BERRY: No, of course there is no evidence of it. There is no evidence amongst the people who have got the jobs, because if there were evidence of it they would not be there. This is just claptrap. I have heard so many times that people love to be on Australian workplace agreements, secret agreements, and they really volunteer to get on them. They go into the boss' office and he says, "Here's an Australian workplace agreement, mate. You can take it or leave it." All of a sudden the worker says, "Well, I need the job." He does not object because if he does he is out the door. What employer is going to say, "These secret agreements have been objected to by everybody around the place"? They are a means to cut the conditions, wages and costs of workers. Everybody knows that so don't put your head in the sand.

Let us assume for a moment that we can cop the fact that people have individual contracts. I should stop for a moment and make the point that we should not confuse individual contracts for cleaning workers with individual contracts for high-flying executives. Cleaning workers never have trouble getting a garage big enough for their BMWs or their flash four-wheel drives and they never need to pay a wharfage fee for their fancy cruisers. So, it is just a joke to draw comparison between high-flying bureaucrats and executives on individual contracts and cleaning workers on individual contracts. But that is what the people opposite attempt to do. Individual contracts for low paid workers are bad news and everybody knows it.

As I was saying, let us for a minute assume that individual contracts are okay. But that is not the point. The point here is that we want to keep faith with the employers who want a level playing field. They do not want other employers avoiding their responsibilities for wages and working conditions, and being able to quote lower than they can. If this is allowed to happen, in the end all employers will be acting in this way and, of course, the losers will be the low-paid late night workers who work in this building after we are home, tucked in bed.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, enough of this nonsense about the interpretation of the definitions of employers and employees in proposed sections 3A and 3B of the bill. Mr Smyth said that I have not said what is wrong with them? I will say what is wrong. They are inadequate for this situation, and that is why you need this 80 per cent rule.

Question put:

That Mr Berry's amendment be agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .