Page 3874 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The key element of Ms MacDonald’s motion deals with no worker being worse off and, effectively, the abolition of the no-disadvantage test. Mr Mulcahy has made much of claims by the Labor movement, the Labor Party, the churches, the Salvation Army, a whole range of organisations that have come out and said, “These are serious issues of concern.” “These claims are not backed up,” say Mr Mulcahy and those on the opposite side of the house, “by the evidence that we have seen of wages growth and employment growth,” and so on.
There is no doubt that right now it is an employees’ market. Workforce shortages in a whole range of areas have seen unemployment drop and wages grow. But the real question is: what will happen to workers and employees when it is an employers’ market? What will happen then? What will happen when the employer has the choice as to whom to recruit, whom to retain, whom to employ, whom to pay and under what conditions? It is then that the safeguards are important. That is really the circumstance in which the federal government’s package should be judged, not when times are good for workers, not when there is demand from employers for workers and there is limited choice.
Of course, when there is low unemployment and workforce shortages, employers are going to pay attractive wages, higher than average wages, and we will see real wages growth. But how is this package going to stand up when there is higher unemployment? How is it going to stand up then? That is when these things will become very important. Surely Mr Mulcahy is not saying that we are always going to have wages growth, high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment? The history of the past two decades alone suggests otherwise, let alone the history of this nation since Federation. That really needs to be considered.
In a time of higher unemployment, how much guarantee will we have that employers will still respect their employees’ needs for long service leave, maternity leave, penalty rates, occupational health and safety issues, all those things? How will those issues be respected in conditions of employment when employees do not have the bargaining power they have in these current prosperous times? Do we seriously believe that, unless they are legislated for and guaranteed in collective agreements and in industrial relations law, those things will still be respected? The answer is no, they will not be respected because there will be no market incentive to respect them. Employers will be able to pick and chose. They will say, “If you want to be employed, I am sorry, but long service leave, leave loading, penalty rates and maternity leave are optional. They are not essential. They are not basic rights.”
The other really disturbing thing about this debate is that the ability to have a job seems to be more important than the ability to have a job that is well paid and where you are respected as an employee, as a worker. It does not matter whether you have got crummy conditions; it does not matter whether you have got poor conditions of service; it does not matter whether you are not respected for your role in the workplace. You have just got a job. For Labor members, it has never been about just jobs. The Labor Party has never been about just having a job. The Labor Party is about having a job where you are respected and where your rights as an individual and as a human being are respected. That is the fundamental difference, I think, in the debate that we are seeing currently in this nation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .