Page 3421 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Pratt: What, like your criticism of Mr Seselja?
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Pratt, cease interjecting.
MR BARR: Perhaps the most disappointing thing is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition continues to stand by that statement and continues to peddle it in the media. It is an unfortunate reflection both on her and on her party that that is the contemporary view of the Liberal Party in 2007. As I say, it stands in marked contrast to the very clear direction that the Skills Commission has outlined in terms of where we need to be as an employer and where employers overall need to be in looking to encourage more family-friendly workplaces, and that is very disappointing. Returning to other aspects of the committee’s work, a report came across my desk this morning entitled ‘Lowering the standards’: from awards to work choices in retail and hospitality collective agreements.
Mr Mulcahy: Who wrote that?
MR BARR: This report was undertaken by the Workplace Research Centre based at the University of Sydney, so it is not exactly a hotbed of Trotskyite researchers, Mr Mulcahy. It undertook a detailed study of 339 Work Choices agreements in the hospitality and retail industries lodged in the first nine months following the commencement of the legislation, and compared these to the relevant pre Work Choices agreements or awards. The report found that wages in the retail sector had dropped by approximately 18 per cent, with between 61 per cent and 81 per cent of agreements reducing earnings. The biggest losers were those employed on a permanent part-time basis in retail liquor outlets, with earnings losses of up to 31.1 per cent. The report found that wages in the hospitality sector have dropped by approximately 12 per cent, with between 75 per cent and 85 per cent of agreements resulting in reduced earnings. The biggest losers there were part-time and casual workers employed in the fast food industry, with earnings losses of up to 21.3 per cent.
The protected award matters that were predominantly being excluded in these new agreements were annual leave loading in 80 per cent of agreements, laundry allowance in 79 per cent of agreements, Saturday penalty rates lost in 76 per cent of agreements, Sunday penalty rates lost in 71 per cent of agreements, overtime rates gone in 68 per cent of agreements, public holiday loadings gone in 60 per cent of agreements, and paid rest breaks gone in 55 per cent of agreements.
Significantly, whilst Work Choices has been promoted by the Howard government as providing an opportunity for employers and employees to negotiate working conditions on an individual basis, the report found that 49 per cent of agreements were based on templates provided by consultants, lawyers and employer associations. Additionally, one-quarter of the 49 per cent were based on one template provided by a single business consultancy. This led the report’s author to note that employers do not have to go to AWAs if they want to lower standards; they simply use collective agreements off the template taken from business and industry associations.
The report highlights that reductions in pay and conditions were not down to a few rogue employers, as the Howard government would have us believe, but reflect
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .