Page 3777 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in considering the AWA. He understands the details of what is in the AWA and the protections that the Fair Pay and Conditions Standard will give him including annual leave … parental leave and maximum ordinary hours of work. Because Billy wants to get a foothold in the job market, he agrees to the AWA and accepts the job …
Because Billy wants to get a foothold in the job market he agrees to the AWA and accepts the job. Where is Billy’s choice? Is this what we want for our families? Are these the choices we want for the people of Canberra? This will be a reality under WorkChoices. At the very least we can thank the federal government for once giving Australians the true intent of their proposals.
WorkChoices is not propaganda—let me make this clear—for propaganda requires some manipulation of the information disseminated. Billy’s story is reflective of what it means to work under a system that encourages AWAs. WorkChoices, as illustrated by Billy’s story, clearly intends to reduce workers’ entitlements to annual, long service and public holiday leave and any applicable leave loading. These changes seek to reduce a worker’s right to a meal break; these changes seek to abolish penalty loadings.
The WorkChoices changes will reduce allowable matters in awards and legislate instead for five employment conditions only: one, minimum hourly rate of pay, currently $12.75; two, sick leave; three, four weeks annual leave, two of which could be cashed out; four, unpaid parental leave; and five, a 38-hour week but no extra pay for overtime, long shifts or weekend work.
While another 16 matters will remain allowable under awards, these will be significantly undermined by the push to put people on individual contracts.
Despite the federal government’s spruiking about the benefits of these contracts and the fact that many commonwealth departments have forced new employees to sign them, they represent only some 2.5 per cent of agreements. Why such little take-up? We can ask Nelly why workers are reluctant to sign AWAs. Nelly had been employed on a permanent part-time basis as a veterinary nurse for over 10 years. She was presented with an AWA by her employer who told her that, if she did not sign it, he would drop her wages by $3 an hour. Nelly was also told that, under the AWA, she would not receive any long service leave. Where was Nelly’s choice? Ten years of service, 10 years of caring for our pets, nursing them back to health, and what in return? A trip to the pound!
Nelly’s story and the story of countless others highlight why only 2.5 per cent of workers, that is, 4,575 Canberrans, work under AWAs. So unconvinced are we in Canberra to trust Mr Howard’s record that in Civic only a few months ago Community and Public Sector Union members employed at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations took their opposition to AWAs to the streets. At least under the current system AWAs must be tested against the relevant award, though such testing has resulted in young workers being paid by weekly video hire, as I have raised in the Assembly before.
At least employers are legally required to match the overall entitlements of the relevant award. Under WorkChoices, all an employer needs to do is lodge the AWA, ensuring that the five allowable matters are met, with the by-line that annual leave can be cashed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .