economics references committee€¦ · welcome you to the hearing. i now invite you to give the...

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SENATE

ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Reference: Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996

CAIRNS

Friday, 19 July 1996

(OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT)

CANBERRA

SENATEECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Members:

Senator Jacinta Collins (Chair)Senator Ferguson (Deputy Chair)

Senator Bishop Senator MackaySenator Chapman Senator MurraySenator Childs Senator Panizza

Substitute Members

1. Senator Sherry to substitute for Senator Bishop except for:9-16 July when Senator Forshaw will substitute for Senator Bishop;17-25 July when Senator Murphy will substitute for Senator Bishop.

2. Senator Cooney to substitute for Senator Mackay for the period 29 and 30July.

3. Senator Crane to substitute for Senator Panizza.

Participating Members

Senator Abetz Senator MacGibbonSenator Allison Senator MargettsSenator Bourne Senator McGauranSenator Brown Senator McKiernanSenator Brownhill Senator MinchinSenator Calvert Senator MurphySenator Campbell Senator NealSenator Carr Senator O’CheeSenator Colston Senator PanizzaSenator Cook Senator SchachtSenator Cooney Senator SherrySenator Ellison Senator Stott DespojaSenator Chris Evans Senator TamblingSenator Forshaw Senator TroethSenator Kemp Senator WatsonSenator Ian Macdonald Senator WoodsSenator Sandy Macdonald

Matters referred by the Senate for inquiry into and report on:

(1) The Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 standreferred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 August1996, with particular reference to the following matters:

(a) whether the various State industrial jurisdictions can or will provide adequateprotection for workers employed under state agreements;

(b) the implications for the Australian economy;

(c) whether the provisions of the bill will fulfil Australia’s international obligationsand whether the provisions of the bill will affect Australia’s international relations;

(d) the effects of similar provisions in other countries;

(e) the extent to which the proposed legislation impacts on the national skillsaccreditation, traineeships, apprenticeship system and vocational education systems, andwhether State legislation will be complementary to the Federal Act;

(f) whether any proposed powers exercised by the Australian Industrial RelationsCommission would be better exercised by another federal government body, and whetherfurther consequential amendments will be needed to other acts to achieve this;

(g) whether any proposed powers exercised by another Federal Government bodywould be better exercised by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and whetherfurther consequential amendments will be needed to other acts to achieve this;

(h) the impact on small business of the proposed legislation and the extent towhich the proposed institutional arrangements provide adequate support for small businessin dealing with industrial matters;

(i) the extent to which proposed Budget cuts will reduce the capacity of the AIRCto perform its role;

(j) whether the bill as a whole or in part is constitutional;

(k) the extent to which state legislation on unfair dismissals complements or willcomplement the proposed federal act;

(l) whether the provisions of the bill provide a fair balance between the rights ofemployers and organisations of employers, and the rights of workers and unions;

(m) whether reporting mechanisms on the progress of enterprise bargaining areadequate and might need to be improved in light of the bill;

(n) the impact of the proposed legislation on the balance between work and familyresponsibilities;

(o) the impact of the proposed bill on youth employment and training.

WITNESSES

BRADSHAW, Mr Alan, 4 Card Avenue, Manunda, Cairns, Queensland 4870 . 1261

BUTTENSHAW, Mr Charles James, Organiser, Transport Workers Union, 92Commercial Road, Newstead, Brisbane, Queensland 4006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1242

BYRNE, Ms Marlene, 24 Montrose Avenue, Edge Hill, Queensland 4870. . . . . 1256

FORAN, Mrs Frances, Registered Nurse, Member of the Queensland Nurses Union,12 Ina Court, Weipa, Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1217

FORAN, Mr Wayne, Fitter and Turner, Comalco, and Member of the Construction,Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Third Floor, 361 Kent Street, Sydney, NewSouth Wales 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1217

FORSYTH, Ms Diane, 114 Woodward Street, Edge Hill, Queensland 4870. . . . 1260

GOULD, Mr Nigel, Truck Driver-Loader Driver, Comalco, and Member ofthe Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, PO Box 417,Weipa, Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1217

GRIFFITHS, Mr Ian Leslie Steward, Regional Organiser, Peninsula andLeichhardt, Queensland Teachers Union, PO Box 5096, Cairns, Queens-land 4870 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1199

HANNA, Mr David Arthur, Organiser, Builders Labourers Federation, 366Upper Roma Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1242

HANSEN, Miss Jodi, 1 Mankina Court, Weipa, Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217

LOGAN, Mr Brad, 73 Hoey Road, MSI 1039, Kuranda, Queensland 4872. . . . 1262

McLOUGHLIN, Ms Lesley Joy, President of Cairns South Branch, CouncilRepresentative for Cairns South and Secretary ACTU (local), Queens-land Teachers Union, PO Box 5096, Cairns, Queensland 4870. . . . . . . . 1199

NICHOLLS, Ms Pat, President, Cairns Trades and Labour Council andQueensland Nurses Union, Cairns Provincial Council of ACTU, PO Box284, Cairns, Queensland 4870. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1242

PRENDEVILLE, Mr Mick, Process Worker, Comalco, Kaolin Plant, andMember of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union,Third Floor, 361 Kent Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000. . . . . . . . 1217

RUTHERFORD, Mr David, Electrician, Comalco, and Member of the Con-struction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Third Floor, 361 KentStreet, Sydney, New South Wales 2000,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217

SCHECKS, Mr Leigh Anthony, State Council Delegate, Peninsula AreaCouncil, Queensland Teachers Union, PO Box 5096, Cairns, Queensland4870 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1199

SMITH, Mr Mark, 9 Ryrie Street, El-Arish, Queensland 4855 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1264

TREWERN, Mrs Joan, 18 Valmadre Street, Lake Placid, Queensland 4878 . . . 1258

SENATEECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE

Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996

CAIRNS

Friday, 19 July 1996

Present

Committee members

Senator Jacinta Collins (Chair)

Senator Chapman Senator Mackay

Senator Childs Senator Murray

Senator Ferguson

Participating member

Senator Murphy

The committee met at 9.03 a.m.

Senator Jacinta Collins took the chair.

1197

E 1198 SENATE—References Friday, 19 July 1996

CHAIR —I declare open this public meeting of the committee. Today the refer-ences committee holds the 11th public hearing in its inquiry into the Workplace Relationsand Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996. This matter was referred to the committee bythe Senate on 23 May and the committee is due to report back to the Senate by 22 Augustthis year. The committee’s terms of reference are wide-ranging and require a considerationof both the detail of the bill and the broader impact that the legislation will have onAustralia.

So far the committee has held public hearings in Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney,Melbourne, Hobart, Launceston, Bendigo and Cessnock. Further hearings are planned forDarwin, Perth, Karratha, Adelaide and finally Canberra.

The committee has now received over 1,300 submissions. While a considerablenumber of these are from large organisations such as employer groups and unions, manyare from individuals expressing their views about the way in which the legislation willchange relations between employers and employees. The committee has also received quitea number of form letters and petitions.

For the record, this is a public hearing and, as such, members of the public arewelcome to attend. However, I should point out that only the witnesses at the table areable to speak to the committee during the formal part of the proceedings. Before wecommence taking evidence, let me also place on record that all witnesses are protected byparliamentary privilege with respect to submissions made to the committee and evidencegiven before it. Parliamentary privilege means special rights and immunities attached tothe parliament or its members and others which are necessary for the discharge of thefunctions of the parliament without obstruction and without fear of prosecution. Any actby any person which operates to the disadvantage of a witness on account of evidencegiven by him or her before the Senate or any committee of the Senate is treated as abreach of privilege.

The committee has before it a set of submissions to be heard today. If it is thewish of the committee, I propose that all submissions to be heard today be released nowand incorporated as a separate volume ofHansard. There being no objection, it is soordered.

ECONOMICS

Friday, 19 July 1996 SENATE—References E 1199

[9.06 a.m.]

GRIFFITHS, Mr Ian Leslie Steward, Regional Organiser, Peninsula and Leichhardt,Queensland Teachers Union, PO Box 5096, Cairns, Queensland 4870

McLOUGHLIN, Ms Lesley Joy, President of Cairns South Branch, Council Repre-sentative for Cairns South and Secretary ACTU (local), Queensland Teachers Union,PO Box 5096, Cairns, Queensland 4870

SCHELKS, Mr Leigh Anthony, State Council Delegate, Peninsula Area Council,Queensland Teachers Union, PO Box 5096, Cairns, Queensland 4870

CHAIR —Our first witnesses today represent the Queensland Teachers Union. Iwelcome you to the hearing. I now invite you to give the committee an overview of yoursubmissions and then committee members will ask you questions.

Mr Griffiths —What I intend to do is to give a brief regional perspective inrelation to the education industry in far north and north western Queensland which I coverand go on to discuss the current situation in state education in relation to agreements andawards. That comes under term of reference (a). I also referred in my submission to termof reference (l), which relates to rights of employers and unions, going on to (f) and (g),which relate to the IRC powers, and then (b) the Australian economy, (o) youth employ-ment and training and, finally, work and family.

As Peninsula and Leichhardt regional organiser, I cover an area from Cardwell,halfway to Townsville, north to the New Guinea border and west to Camooweal andBoulia in the north-west, an area approximately four times the size of Victoria. In thatarea we have 2,600 QTU members of a total QTU membership of approximately 35,000.Approximately 95 per cent of possible membership in state schools is covered by theQueensland Teachers Union, so we do have a very high coverage. The Department ofEducation is the employing body under state government schools. We do not coverindependent and Catholic schools. It covers preschool teachers, primary teachers, secon-dary teachers, special needs teachers, and so on. That is about three-quarters of the state’steachers, the other quarter being in the independent sector. Those teachers are covered bythe teachers’ awards, state, to which I will refer throughout my presentation.

We also have an increasing number of TAFE teachers covered under the TAFEaward. We cover provincial cities, such as Cairns and Mt Isa, and remote communities arealso a very big factor, particularly in the peninsula area—areas like Doomadgee, Aurukun,Lockhart, the outer islands of Torres Strait, Badu, Saibai, Thursday Island, and so on. Soit is an interesting area and covers many industries—which I am sure the senators will beinterested in—such as tourism in this area; mining at Mt Isa—and there has been a lot onthe news in relation to that recently; the pastoral industry; the farming industry; serviceindustries, and so on. The education industry plays a vital role in preparing the youth of

ECONOMICS


Australia to serve in those industries. That is the line of work in which our members areinvolved.

I would like to proceed to agreements and awards, just so that senators and othersare apprised of the situation under which we work currently. We have the Teachers’Award State which covers preschool, primary, secondary and special teachers. We alsonow have two enterprise bargaining agreements. There is the operational areas agreement,which covers teachers in schools basically working with children and youths, and the coreagreement, which involves people in the education department working more in the publicservice side of things.

We also have a community teacher and assistant teacher award. That covers ourAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers who are working generally on their way tobecoming registered teachers and are teaching in the outer islands of the Torres Strait andcentres like Doomadgee, Aurukun, Pormpuraaw, and so on in the cape and gulf. So that isa very important one. Just recently we have had ratified a registered industrial agreementfor non-contact time. The point I am making there is that there are awards, there is anEBA, and there are various registered agreements. Under the TAFE sector we have aTAFE award and a TAFE enterprise bargaining agreement.

On workplace reform, I am sure senators will be interested in relation to flexibilityfor agreed constructive change, with some sort of worker security. I do not think as aunion we would say that there should not be positive constructive change to improveproductivity. We have already looked at some of those areas. For example, within theCairns area there is a consortium. That is four schools that have come together poolingtheir resources, pooling their ideas, to be more effective. That is under a registeredworkplace reform initiative under the enterprise bargaining agreement.

As senators will be aware, the enterprise bargaining agreements sit on top of, forexample, the Teachers’ Award State. Where there is a discrepancy they will overrule. Forexample, in the post-compulsory area we recently had up here Professor Alan Cummings,the Dean of Education at Queensland University of Technology. He ran a very interestingmeeting in relation to post-compulsory education. Obviously, that is a vital stage, seniorsecondary and TAFE, where we are working towards the vocational education and trainingof our youth. That refers to the youth employment and training term of reference.

That is an important area under workplace reform where we might have to changeplacement of hours. For example, at Mt Isa State High School they start earlier in the dayto modify the timetable so that their training program can be more effective for some ofthose kids who are going to work in Mt Isa mines, and so on.

I guess what I am saying is that, as a union, we believe that these awards,agreements, workplace reform and EBAs are pretty effective. They are not perfect.Obviously, as a union we have some concerns about some areas of them, but there always

ECONOMICS


has to be give and take. We would be concerned were some of the proposals in the newact to come into place. But obviously, I would have to indicate why we would feel thatway.

We would feel a little concerned if the award system were undermined to theextent that we were to go from paid rates awards, where salaries are clearly codified, tominimum rates awards, where you simply have a minimum salary and the rest is negoti-able. That could produce rather difficult circumstances within the workplace, we believe. Itis not that we do not believe that there should be flexibility or that there should be somepositive competition, but having different people on different rates of pay and only havinga minimal rate would be a concern to us.

Other things that we see as being under threat under the limited jurisdiction of theaward and its arbitral powers would be things like teacher workload, promotionalprovisions within the Teachers’ Award State, and Trade Union Training Authority leave. Iwould make the strong point here that when we have our seminars it is not all argy-bargy;a lot of it is simply to train people up with positive skills where they can negotiate in theworkplace to conciliate, basically.

Another area of concern is meal breaks. Currently clause 24 of the Teachers’Award State provides a continuous 45-minute meal break. When I go into schools and saythat, all the teachers laugh because they never get it. But at least it is a provision that isthere if they need it. The right of entry of organisers such as myself is something that Iwill cover a little later.

Also, we would have concerns in relation to Australian workplace agreements,AWAs, in relation to lack of pre-agreement review and also some secrecy there. Webelieve that one of the good things about the current system is that, prior to agreementsand awards being settled, there has been some reasonable scrutiny. I think that is in theinterests of all, and I think even some employers also believe that that has been positive tokeep down the rate of disputation over the last number of years.

With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island workers and women workers, it is veryvital that they be apprised of their industrial entitlements and that those entitlements bemaintained. That is why we have awards like the community and assistant teacher award.

I might just read a piece here from Mr Reith’s speech to the parliament on 23 May1996 and entitled, ‘Australia at the turning point’. He said:

The bill rejects the highly paternalistic presumption that has underpinned the industrial relationssystem in this country for too long—that employees are not only incapable of protecting their owninterests, but even of understanding them, without the compulsory involvement of unions andindustrial tribunals.

We would make the point that a lot of work has gone into a document like this by very

ECONOMICS


professional people. We say that, for a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandteachers on Saibai Island to come to terms with that without the assistance of a union, orteachers at Cairns State High School to come here without some professional assistance,such as the drafters of this bill have had, is patently absurd. It is vital that, without goingover the top, we provide that sort of assistance to our members.

I might just stop there and see if either of my colleagues wish to make anycomments in relation to either the regional perspective, which was my introduction, or theagreements and awards.

Mr Schelks—I would make a couple of points. One would be that senators, havingbeen in Cairns for a couple of days, would now have some concept of just how multicul-tural and diverse the nature of education is in terms of our clientele. One area that Ian hasreferred to and we will refer to as we go through is the significant number of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Island students, as well as employees, that we have.

We have 46 per cent of the state’s population of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIsland students in this region. Obviously, we have a great concern and a great amount ofinterest in making sure we are providing not only adequate education but appropriateeducation to those students. One of the initiatives we have been looking at in terms ofproviding that service is recruiting, training and developing Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander students from the communities that they work from.

That program has been very successful. At the end of this year, for example, wewill see 35 of those teachers graduating and working in our schools. Although they have avery strong knowledge from their community and a very strong cultural knowledge, whichis essential in delivering adequate education to those students, what they often do not haveis a knowledge of the particular industrial relations concerns or issues that obviously arevery important, particularly in those remote communities.

The other area of concern that we have is that, because of the very remote natureof those communities, we tend to have a significantly higher number of young teachersproviding services in those communities. One community, Kowanyama, this year has ninefirst-year teachers teaching on a staff of approximately 15 teachers. So there are signifi-cant issues in relation to professional development and training, not only in the teachingand learning process but also obviously in the experience of dealing with conflict at theworkplace and in negotiating through different issues, as well as things that are everydayconcerns about working and living in a remote Aboriginal community.

There are some significant issues that we believe are important in terms of supportfrom a regional organiser, such as Ian. We would be reluctant to see a diminishing of thatsupport in that role as well as of understanding of the sort of issues that Ian brings to that,from an experienced teacher’s view in working with those communities.

ECONOMICS


The only other concern I have is that, when I first saw this document, Ian asked,‘Can you read that through and just give us an idea of what it is about?’ I shuddered atthe thought of it. I have been teaching for 16 years and have been working in a profes-sional capacity for that length of time, and I found it quite difficult to go throughsomething like this. I would hasten to add that I think a lot of professional people whowork in our workplaces would find it difficult as well.

Senator FERGUSON—So do we!

Ms McLoughlin —I would like to add very briefly my comments about this. Myfull-time profession is English teacher. I am highly literate. I am used to dealing with hugeamounts of information like this. I have been teaching for about 28 years. I have been anactive union member in all of that time, an elected official representing large groups ofunionists, and a union representative in my own school. Yet I would maintain that to askindividuals to deal with employers with this sort of information is, as Ian said, patentlyridiculous.

It is all very well to imagine that it is patronising for a union official to come inand assist people to do that. But the reality is that, for most people, their main job iswhatever they are working at. Mine happens to be English teaching: that is where my fieldof expertise is. For me then to have to organise an award with my employer on top ofwhat I normally do, and to have to come to terms with all of this legalistic jargon andthese provisions is ridiculous. To spill that over into other areas, we would at least have aworkplace where we are used to dealing with this kind of thing. I am member of theACTU Queensland in Cairns. I could imagine that, however, in certain workplaces wherethere are only a couple of employees who have never had anything to do with this sort ofthing, it would be impossible for them to negotiate themselves through this kind ofminefield to their advantage, given the fact that the employers would be advantaged bytheir own knowledge of this and of what they want from it.

Mr Griffiths —Moving on to just a few more points, term of reference (l), whichis on rights of employers and unions, is an important one. The state government has saidthat they would ‘harmonise’ the state legislation to parallel the federal legislation. Thiswould have an impact on our QTU members, particularly given that the Queenslandgovernment is both employer and legislator, which gives them considerable powers. Wewould have concerns about the devolution of negotiation to the level where a particularschool comes up with an enterprise agreement and, basically, it has to be negotiated withthe state government.

I can perhaps understand people feeling that there is a need in industry to getthings going and that the unions are interfering. But when you look at what JoyMcLoughlin and Leigh Schecks have said about this document, we do a lot of those thingswhen we go into the workplace. I just went through some of the things here. When I gointo a workplace, many of the things I do are completely non-controversial, non-

ECONOMICS


confrontationist. They are things like informing and answering questions; just going tomorning tea, talking for 10 minutes and telling them the latest things. That helps defuse alot of potential problems because people may have false concerns about an EBA, forexample. They might have false concerns about other matters.

I support members with grievances and investigations. I frequently have people inmy office in tears, not because of anything I do, but because there are grievances andinvestigations going on that they are very concerned about. We can be very supportivethere. The QTU is going in there to listen and to convey back concerns. When we had thefirst enterprise bargaining agreement mark one—and Joy and Leigh will remember—wewent around with a matrix table saying, ‘These are the proposals: what do you think ofthem?’

Tomorrow, all three of us will be sitting in Brisbane in the State Council of theQueensland Teachers Union which meets five times a year. Over 100 delegates attendbecause it is almost a terminally democratic organisation. We will be looking at the firstparts of EB mark two. The teachers’ award says rostered duty time is 25 hours a week.That is contact time and non-contact time, but on average—as one of our documents heresays—teachers work at least 50 hours a week and often beyond that because stress is avery major thing. It is a very false assumption that all teachers do is work nine to three.That was never true, and it is certainly not true these days with the number of stress casesI see. You only have to look at the worker’s comp figures to bear that out. So EB is animportant area where we will be consulting.

Some of us, as officers, felt it might be a good idea if we had other duty timewritten into the award for all those things like playground duty, meetings, staff meetings,and so on. But our members said no. So whatever our views were, the democraticallyelected members—Joy has been democratically elected and so has Leigh—of our statecouncil said no, whatever the views of the officers were. We negotiate, we represent, wesupport. I have spoken about stress, conditions, occupational health and safety, teacheraccommodation, professional matters and industrial matters. Leigh might want to saysomething about teacher accommodation.

Mr Schelks—I am part of the regional accommodation committee. An importantpoint is the fact that a lot of the issues in relation to the union and the state government,in terms of being our employer as the education department, are quite collaborative innature and also in practice. We meet quite regularly and the role of the QueenslandTeachers Union is seen as being one that smooths the waters in terms of issues which canbe quite sticky. Teacher accommodation, particularly in our remote communities, isprobably the single issue which causes teachers most stress, not in the workplace workingconditions of teachers, but certainly in the living conditions.

If a 21-year-old teacher who is just out college and into Metallica, Black Sabbath,ACDC or one of the headbangers is sharing accommodation with a mature teacher who is

ECONOMICS


into opera, it often causes quite a problem. That situation is not far from the truth. Wehave had quite interesting scenarios put to us. The role of members of our union is to bepro-active in solving some of those problems. The working relationship between thedepartment and the union on that one issue of teacher accommodation has brought aboutsignificant change for the better. I think it is a very prominent example of the collabor-ative and consultative nature of the way we work.

Mr Griffiths —This is an appropriate time to bring up right of entry. In my walletI have an authorisation certificate to say that I can come into any workplace at any time.Under the new legislation, the proposal is that one, two or more members would have towrite to me and invite me in. I do not have any major problems with that, except, as Isaid in my submission, I think it is burgeoning administrivia. I have never been challengedwhen entering a workplace; in fact, I am normally welcomed with open arms becausepeople know that there is some information coming that they can use. They often haveproblems that they want solved. Principals are our members also because we coverprincipals, middle managers, line managers and teachers. They often work together tonegotiate in relation to disputes that may have arisen.

I suppose we feel a little bit peeved in so far as we feel that some of this legisla-tion is a little bit over the top in terms of making us really go through the hoops to getinto a workplace. As Leigh said, we get in there to collaboratively work together to solveteacher accommodation problems, to solve grievance matters, to negotiate where there is adispute and to be really proactive to stop the problems before they begin.

F and G terms of reference relate to the IRC powers. I will only touch on thesebecause you would have heard more from our central submissions. Most of our cases goto the QIRC, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. There are some cases, likesection 118A cases—the coverage cases—that do go to the AIRC, for example, the TAFEcoverage case. Currently the IRCs provide a firm basis for industrial harmony and workerprotection. We are not saying that the current system is perfect and that it cannot bechanged or improved. But we do have major concerns about the way that this bill is tryingto change things because we do not believe that many of the proposals are improvements.In fact—and I believe some workers agree with us—much of the industrial harmony thatwe have seen over the last 10 years may be prejudiced by some of the provisions in thebill.

We support an independent arbitrator with a broad jurisdiction. We do not supportthe narrowing of jurisdiction of the awards and disputes, and that is an area of concern. Ibelieve the arbitral powers are to be reduced to about 18 core areas. That would lock outcertain things about which we would have some concerns such as teacher workload,promotion, Trade Union Training Authority leave, meal breaks and right of entry—allthose sorts of things. Many of those things are in our award already. They do not causeany problems and they give a secure working environment which facilitates, I believe,productivity from teachers who—say, from our Cairns TAFE campus—produce students

ECONOMICS


who graduate, who get into the workplace, who go to TAFE, go into tertiary education,the pastoral industry, the mining industry, or tourism and hospitality.

With respect to the Australian economy, the education industry is an investment inthe future; it should not be perceived as a resented line item in the budget. It is aninvestment in the future. Obviously we are concerned about possible budget cuts in thestate budget, and some of those flowing from the recent Premiers Conference that we haveheard so much about in the media. We are also concerned about budget cuts in relation tothe IRCs, for whatever reason, whether it is diminution of the arbitral powers to 18 majoritems, or whatever.

Those post-compulsory, TAFE and VET—vocational education and training—areasare vital, and I believe that there is immense harmony within the education industry. Now,it does not mean that we just kowtow. If there are things we do not like, we are assertiveabout them and we will lobby and we will represent. But generally we can be proactive, Ithink, in the way that we are attempting to be now by saying, ‘Listen, we disagree withsome of these provisions, AWAs and some of the other matters, rights of entry. Webelieve that it will work better, not only for us but for the employers and the communityand the future, if we modify what we have currently in a positive way and not try toscrew down on some of the provisions that we are concerned about.’

Youth employment and training: I would just say one thing about flexibility. MrReith talks about flexibility, and that is fine, I agree with him: we do need to be flexible—but not just flexible to screw down the worker; flexible in a horizontal and verticaldirection to make things more effective. I know many of my union colleagues andmembers will agree that some of these provisions we see as verging on the punitive, andwe argue very strongly that they will be extremely counterproductive. So, even if you donot agree with unions and you think that unions are a pain in the proverbial, I think peopleneed to consider very carefully the effects of this legislation, because, as someone saidrecently about our Aboriginal leaders, we alienate those who are moderately assertive atthe expense of producing radicalism that is completely counterproductive. I think thatargument is true of us as well.

Work and family: obviously that is vital. We have worked to get, for example, sickleave which is now able to be used for family reasons. So that is something positive thatwe have negotiated under the current system. I guess we are saying that it is not a perfectsystem but it works reasonably well. Screwing down the workers, as we believe some ofthese provisions would do, would be counterproductive for industry, counterproductive foremployers and counterproductive for the nation.

CHAIR —Thank you, Mr Griffiths.

Senator CHILDS—I should declare that 39 years ago I was a union organiser, butI am quite impressed with the area you have to organise compared with my sections of

ECONOMICS


Sydney. With an area to cover as vast as you have described, visiting your members isobviously very difficult. Do you seek to visit all schools in the region over time?

Mr Griffiths —Yes. In fact, many schools I would visit four times a year—obviously not the more remote ones. Places like Mt Isa I get to about seven times a year.Many of the Cairns schools I would do three or four times a year. The remoter ones Iattempt to do every year. Some I would only get to every couple of years. Sometimes,unfortunately, with the outer islands, it is a bit more than that because of cost andtransport difficulties.

Senator CHILDS—I wonder whether I could explore what would happen from thepoint of view of your members if you were not able to service them. For example, if wewere to see a system of AWA negotiations, what do you see as the difficulties, particular-ly concerning the perspective of your members, that they would probably have in facingnegotiations in very isolated areas of the state?

Mr Griffiths —I guess I come back to those outer islands. Let us say we are onBoygu Island, for example, where you can look across the mudflats to New Guinea—youcan see New Guinea across the way—isolated not only from Melbourne but also fromCairns and from Thursday Island. It is not patronising to say that our members therewould need some assistance, considering that Joy with her 28 years experience orwhatever and we with our 20-25 years of experience in the teaching profession, beingreasonably articulate and not having English as a second language, would have someproblem trying to negotiate from this. So that would be a major concern. Leigh mightwant to say something about first-year teachers.

Mr Schelks—I would make a comment. I spent six years teaching at Aurukun. Iam sure that the senators would be aware of the difficulties, even if they are not from ourstate, that communities like Aurukun have and have had over a period of many years interms of some of the social issues that occur.

One incident I remember quite vividly was where the union organiser arrived atour school in the midst of quite a violent episode that was occurring in the school, wherein fact one teacher was attacked with a star picket and was actually disabled for a periodof time. The union organiser happened to be visiting at that time, and that actually gaveus, as members, a feeling that we were getting support, that someone was there from theoutside who could see what was happening and could relay those issues back to thecentral office in Brisbane. Out of that incident and many other incidents that haveoccurred in places like Aurukun, we have seen significant changes in the way teachers areprofessionally developed in the way of security and such community issues before they gothere. If we removed that support structure, we would certainly see some dramatic changesin terms of teacher stress in managing the situation.

ECONOMICS


The other comment I would make is that Ian, in the past, has taken an Aboriginalor Torres Strait Island teacher with him when he has visited some of these remotelocations. Those people then can act as interpreters, since we have Torres Strait creole andother languages as an issue, and they can also provide a cultural aspect on what Ian isthere about in terms of providing that support. For our remote communities, any diminish-ing of that support would be a crucial and vital step backwards.

Mr Griffiths —In a place like Doomadgee—where there have just been more riots,as you recently would have heard on the news—seven of the 10 teachers might be first-year teachers. They are probably only 21, 22 or 23. Just think of them trying to negotiatethis while there were riots going on in the background.

Senator CHILDS—Apologists for the legislation will say that there are provisionsfor the individual to be assisted by the union. But what problems would that pose for theunion in trying to service your electorate under those circumstances?

Mr Griffiths —Particularly in terms of agreements?

Senator CHILDS—The bill, if it were to be passed, would provide for a person toget the assistance of the union. However, I would imagine that would pose a problem forthe union in being able to service people under those circumstances, because of theresources that you have.

Mr Griffiths —Yes. The current situation is one where we might only visit aschool once a year. It is a time when you can get in there and negotiate. Because some ofthose things are being done centrally, you can do many of those things during that visit.But, if there are AWAs being developed all over the state, it would cause a majorproblem, not only for resources but also for the logistics of having enough people on theground to get there. I believe very strongly that you do need an independent body, such asa union, not to stir people up but just to say, ‘Look, this has happened somewhere else,and you need to be cautious about giving up your sick leave or whatever it is.’ We haveseen cases like that in the media.

Senator FERGUSON—Firstly, Mr Schecks, I wish you were right and that wehad spent two or three days here. Unfortunately, about 18 hours seems to be the limit. Iwish it were two or three days. I want to make a comment. Mr Griffiths, I can say that,while I might disagree with the conclusions that you have drawn in your interpretation ofpart of our legislation, I will rereadHansardwith interest. I want to congratulate you onyour submission, because it is one of the most lucid submissions that we have had for along time. You have identified your own union’s areas of concern and while, as I said,there are a number of areas where I would dispute your interpretation, I want to congratu-late you on the way you have presented your submission. I will read it with interest, andrereadHansardto look at the points that you have raised.

ECONOMICS


Senator MURRAY—I agree with you that most employees will find difficulty innegotiating their way through employment bargaining with this bill as a background. Butwhy do you think that most individual employers will find it any easier than individualemployees will?

Mr Griffiths —It may not be true in very small businesses, but in larger businessesemployers often have more resources to hire someone who is very knowledgeable inindustrial law—an advocate of some sort. Our first-year teachers at Doomadgee certainlywould not have those sorts of resources or knowledge. We just could not get around to allthe centres where this was happening. I am sure you will hear from some of the otherunions that they have similar concerns in terms of resources that workers, particularly ourlower paid workers, have. They just do not have the resources to seek the expert profes-sional advice that an employer can seek. I do not want to be patronising or untruthfultowards employers; I am sure there are some smaller employers who do not have hugefunds, and that might be the case. But I think, on the whole, employers would havegreater resources to employ such an industrial expert.

Senator MURRAY—I would suggest to you that that is not so. The vast majorityof employers are small to medium enterprises with extremely limited resources. I thinkyour assumptions in that area need to be treated with caution.

The area I want to cover is your strength. I think at 95 per cent that is thestrongest unionisation I have come across—of a large organisation, anyway. Do youexpect that, when or if this bill goes through in its complexity and its completeness, yournumbers will diminish?

Mr Griffiths —I have no reason to believe so. In fact, they have increased sincethis legislation was proposed. I am not saying it is just the legislation, but I think maybemany workers feel that under a non-Labor government they might need a little moreindustrial protection. Our general secretary, John Badhams, when he was going throughthe listing, sent it back and said, ‘This can’t be right. We always had more non-membersthan this’. But it was rechecked and it was correct. The numbers have gone up and, ifthings get tougher, I think we will hold that membership. We are a very service-orientedunion, as I have said, and I think to survive into the 21st century the unions have to beextremely service-oriented and democratic. I think that is one of the reason why wemaintain close to 100 per cent membership.

Ms McLoughlin —As a rank and file member, I think that often the publicperception of unions and union officials is that they are adversarial, dealing constantlywith conflicts. Our union has made a point of doing that, not running away from them, butit also provides a service in all sorts of other areas. Members are going to belong becauseof those things. The union organiser provides assistance in knowledge of protocols. Ifthere is something we want to do within the department, they are often a liaison resource.They know who are the people to contact. They have access to information that people on

ECONOMICS


the ground in schools do not have at all. They provide us with legal information about allsorts of things. I think those sorts of things are really important. That is what a unionshould do and I think our union does do that. There are unions that maybe do not do thatat times, but there is no reason to criticise or to disempower all unions simply becausesome may, at times, prove to be troublesome.

Senator MURRAY—I understand the service ethos of your union. The point isthat much of the argument before this committee has been that this bill will increase theinequality of bargaining power between employees and employers, and that that isparticularly so in the non-unionised employee sector and in sectors which are partiallyunionised. But I put it to you that you are a strong union and are therefore unlikely to bein an unequal bargaining situation with a strong employer, simply because you representso many people.

I have made that remark because I have observed in my own state of WesternAustralia the teachers’ union there very effectively got a community campaign going tosupport them. At the end of a year of protracted industrial interaction in a state with fartougher industrial relations laws than you have in Queensland, their minister was movedand the Director-General was fired. I would suggest to you that was a situation whereequal bargaining power was apparent. So my question to you as a strong union is: areyour fears about this bill overstated in your particular instance?

Mr Griffiths —I come back to that first point we were talking about. I am not allthat familiar with small business, and I have listened to what you have said on that point.However, our employer is the state government—either the Department of Education orthe TAFE—and, were a group of employees or an individual employee to take up anindividual AWA, I think there would be a massive discrepancy of power because, on theone hand, you have an education department that has a legal and industrial section and, onthe other, you have an individual or a broader workplace agreement in a particular place. Ithink that is the concern that we would have.

Senator MURRAY—But why should they do that? You have made the point thatyou are very member responsive and very democratic and that 95 per cent of teachers areunionised. Why should individual teachers want to break ranks?

Mr Griffiths —I think you are right. I think we can hold the line, so to speak, andwe would not have too much trouble convincing people that it is vital to stay within thestructure of the Queensland Teachers Union. But we do have enough of the old unionsolidarity ethos about us to realise that maybe some other workers, particularly morepoorly paid workers, are not so conveniently placed.

Whilst I acknowledge that I am not an expert in the area of small business, and soon, I do know that people can be, and at times are, exploited and perhaps my concerns inthe AWA area are a little bit more for workers in other areas. I do not want to speak at

ECONOMICS


length about that because I am not an expert, but that is one of the reasons we wouldoppose it even if we can hold the line in our own industry.

Senator MURRAY—So might it be true that some of your fears concerning theconsequences of this bill are really directed to the wider community of employees ratherthan your own fears for your own employees?

Mr Griffiths —Yes, possibly to some extent that is true. We would obviously bevery concerned about a situation where people were under AWAs, whether within theeducation sector or without. I think you are right. With a strong service oriented unionthere is probably less possibility of a large number of people doing that. But we stillwould have concerns and make a general statement in relation to the community and thework force.

CHAIR —Mr Griffiths, when we were in Melbourne we heard some evidence fromVictorian teachers. Part of that evidence was to the effect that new graduates seekingemployment were essentially only offered individual contracts. Are you aware of thatcircumstance?

Mr Griffiths —As a union we have been pretty proactive here and we have keptdown the number of what we call ‘temporary teachers’ or ‘contract teachers’. We do havea number of people who are on temporary employment but, generally, particularly in thecurrent market where there is a teacher shortage, they go through and they get a suitabilityrating from S1 through to S4. Generally, if they are S1 or S2 and they have the rightsubject areas, they would get into the permanent work force fairly quickly. I would thinkthat the situation here is somewhat more positive than it is in Victoria.

CHAIR —When you were talking about the potential to maintain union solidarity,to some extent that is constrained—and you are talking about Queensland union solidarity.You could accept that in other states where there is not a teacher shortage the union mighthave difficulties maintaining that solidarity there?

Mr Griffiths —I think that is a good point because, when I was reading throughone of the Australian Education Union documents earlier this morning, it was broughthome to me that there are very big differences between Victoria and Queensland, WesternAustralia and Queensland and probably South Australia and Queensland as well.

CHAIR —Thank you.

Senator CHAPMAN—I take it from your submission that you prefer to remainunder state jurisdiction?

Mr Griffiths —At this stage, yes.

ECONOMICS


Senator CHAPMAN—Are you aware that there is nothing in the legislation thatwould prevent you from doing that?

Mr Griffiths —Yes, I am aware. I had another look through it this morning.

Senator CHAPMAN—Is that why your criticims, in what I regard as a very goodverbal submission, of the legislation seem relatively minor? You have what I would callsome relatively minor concerns but, by and large, you do not have a great deal of concernabout the legislation. Is that a fair summary?

Mr Griffiths —I could not agree with that. There are a number of concerns: rightof entry, AWA and certain aspects of the certified agreements. For example, if you havean award and you have a certified agreement sitting on top of it, the employer can decideto exit the agreement within 28 days—I think it is—of its expiry. Then the workers maygo back down to an award that is well out of date. That is an example for us.

Our current award only has figures prior to the 9.2 per cent that we gained underenterprise bargaining mark 1. Were the education department to pull out prior to the endof enterprise bargaining mark 1, we would be 9.2 per cent down the drain and would bestarting all over again. That is the sort of area of concern that we would have. I could notsay that is minor.

Ms McLoughlin —We are trying to be completely self-seeking about this becausewe have a very high union membership, we are very service orientated and we willprobably manage under this. We are reflecting some of the things that are going to bemagnified in the broader union movement. Although it may not impact on us to such adegree, I think that we as union activists have to be aware of the fact that it is going tomake it very difficult for other unions that may not be as well organised or have as high arate of membership.

Mr Griffiths —For example, Ms McLoughlin is active on the ACTU Queensland.You will be hearing later from the CFMEU that is involved with the ACTU, and therepresentative of the Queensland Nurses Union will be speaking on behalf of the ACTUQ.We are active on the ACTU. As you would be aware, one of the prime beliefs of theunion movement is when there are difficult times to stick together. We do not just limitour concerns to those immediate ones.

However, I say with a caveat that I could not agree with Senator Chapman that ourconcerns are minor, particularly the last one I articulated. I would have major concernsabout an agreement sitting in on top of an award, an employer exiting at the last minuteand then dropping down to outdated award salary rates and so on.

Senator CHAPMAN—You would be aware that some teachers’ unions havesought to move into the federal jurisdiction, for instance South Australian unions.

ECONOMICS


Mr Griffiths —Yes, very much so.

Senator CHAPMAN—Why would you prefer to remain under the state jurisdic-tion?

Mr Griffiths —It has been considered in the past, and to some extent it is a littlebit political. When we were under the Bjelke Petersen era, we might have been looking atit a little bit more because we had a government that was patently not very sympathetic tolabour. In move recent times we have not had those imposts on the union movement assuch, and I guess we feel a little bit of leave well enough alone. It does not mean thingsare perfect, but why move?

Senator CHAPMAN—I wanted to raise the comment made by Ms McLoughlinabout employees having to negotiate their way through a minefield of ‘legalistic jargon’. Itake it you were referring to the actual legislation itself?

Ms McLoughlin —I glanced at it, yes.

Senator CHAPMAN—You would be aware that—and is what I expect wouldoccur and what the legislation requires—employees are to be provided with information asto what their entitlements are under the legislation. I would not expect any employee to benegotiating their way through the detail of the legislation. Under the legislation they arerequired to be advised as to what their entitlements are.

Secondly, if they feel unable to negotiate themselves they have an absolute right toappoint anyone they wish, including their union, to negotiate on their behalf. They wouldnot even have to attend the negotiation meeting if they chose not to. They could leave itall up to the union.

Ms McLoughlin —I agree with that to some degree. I know that is what it says onpaper, but the reality is that that is not quite what happens, even with union negotiations.The reality is that people get on with what they are doing during the day and do not lookat some of these things properly or do not understand what the implications are, thatpeople may well sign them without understanding them. I know in the end you can saythat that is their fault—they should have looked at it, they had access to other people. Atthe moment we have a guaranteed buffer against all of us doing anything stupid or ill-informed. I do not think that that is there when people who might be isolated in smallworkplaces, or ill-informed or naive, I think, might negotiate with an employer and nottake the provisions that they are allowed to. I know it is there.

Senator CHAPMAN—How far do you go in protecting people from themselvesthough? Do we want a complete nanny state where people do not make any decisions forthemselves?

ECONOMICS


Ms McLoughlin —I do not think that is the case. You have professional peoplelike us and that is their job to do that.

Senator CHAPMAN—That was the point I was making—they are there to dothat. Under this legislation they are there to do that quite freely.

Ms McLoughlin —Yes, but it just more optional that they do.

Mr Schecks—In a way we have probably been spoilt in terms of our union in thesense that traditionally we have had structures, processes, protocols and personnel thathave provided teachers at the workplace with that protection and that guarantee of readingthe fine print, if you like. I think there could be a perception that we are being spoon-fed.

I take the point that Joy has made. I know that people who are sitting in this roomare professional people—they are teachers. By and large, as you would be aware, thepressures on school, schooling and teachers has increased. I think that we are havingdifficulty enough transacting our way through what society demands of us as teachers, letalone going into an area of industrial relations, which is quite complex.

I know that may be an overstatement, but I think there is a real fear from us, asteachers, that we could get lost in the confusion of it all. I think we do need that protec-tion of having some structures that allows that. I take your point that that is availableunder the legislation, but I think we need to know that it is there not as a door that can beopened but in fact all the time as a conduit.

Senator MACKAY —Mr Griffiths, are you aware that the Queensland stategovernment is currently undertaking consultations with union groups and employer groupswith regard to the application of the federal legislation in Queensland?

Mr Griffiths —No, I do not think I have heard that.

Senator MACKAY —We heard evidence to this effect yesterday. This is despitethe Queensland government not making any submissions to this inquiry. If the Queenslandstate government were to introduce state legislation that effectively mirrored the federallegislation, which as I understand is an option that they are looking at, how would youfeel about the state legislation in terms of the comments of Senator Chapman aboutsection 152?

Mr Griffiths —I guess we would be more concerned if it were codified within thestate system. Currently we have got our teachers’ award state. That was much more anoption within the state system than it is now. But if, under state industrial relations,options for some of the things that we have concerns about in the federal legislation werecodified, I think we would be fairly concerned about that.

ECONOMICS


Senator MACKAY —Let us say, for example, that they introduce state mirrorlegislation of the federal legislation, including the 18 minima, the requisite minima forAWAs. How would you feel about it then?

Mr Griffiths —That would be very much a major concern. Looking at the QIRC,the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, its arbitral powers would be reduced—you would have a minimum rates award rather than a paid rates award. So instead ofpeople like Leigh, Joy or me being on, say, the top band and getting a certain salary, onlythe minimum rates would be encapsulated within that award.

There are other things that I have spoken about—for example, promotions. There isa section of the award that looks at classified officers positions and, as I said before, wedo cover principals. They are staying with us, and it is pretty important that that is notunder threat. There are meal breaks, the most basic of things. I think it is rather amus-ing—if it were not quite so sad—that it says that regional organisers can basically onlymeet people during meal breaks, and yet meal breaks are not one of those 18 areas thatcan be covered by the award. There might not even be a meal break to meet people in. Itis rather interesting. Yes, it would bring the threat so much closer to home.

Senator MACKAY —I come from Tasmania where there are a large number oftemporary teachers, many of whom have been temporary teachers for 20 years. My secondpoint is that, as a result of the initiatives of the Tasmanian state government in relation toindustrial relations, teachers have sought to get out of the state system and into the federalsystem. Their concern now in Tasmania is that, if the federal legislation were to come in,thousands of temporary teachers who have been temporary for 20 years would lose theirjobs or be forced to negotiate AWAs, with the threat of losing their jobs as a result. Howdo you think your union’s capacity to retain solidarity will hold out in those circum-stances?

Mr Griffiths —That is a real area of concern. I have only briefly touched on thatarea of casual employment. In the state system we have supply teachers and we havetemporary teachers that do temporary blocks. Often their holidays are under threat, andcertainly their long-term security is under threat. Their employment is difficult enough asit is. They do not get any loading. Supply teachers get a 19 per cent loading because it isvery casual, but temp teachers do not. There are already many provisions that they do notget. To make them even more vulnerable—I think we would be quite aghast if that wereto happen.

Senator MACKAY —What if they were put in a position of negotiating AWAsthemselves?

Mr Griffiths —They are much more easily picked off because they are ultimatelysackable. That is the situation even now: if someone does not like the cut of their jib, theycan be out. It is vulnerable enough employment as it is, but we have major concerns about

ECONOMICS


them being susceptible to AWAs, certified agreements and so on. At least they have someprotection.

Senator MACKAY —Can I also put to you that I used to work for the CPSU,which is the major public sector union. At the time I was there it was about 90 per centunion membership, as most public sector unions are. This afforded us no protectionwhatsoever when the state industrial legislation came in. What it meant was that theemployer—being the state government—was essentially able to pick off the unionmembers who were in vulnerable positions in the lower grade clerical positions and,effectively, negotiate individual contracts with them. There was very little that theorganisation could do, despite the fact that it had a high union membership. The point Iam trying to make is that a high union membership does not necessarily translate intoindustrial strength.

Mr Schelks—And we would agree. In our work force obviously the mostvulnerable are our young teachers and, often, our female teachers. Unfortunately, I couldsee that they would cave in under the emotional as well as the financial blackmail that thatsort of legislation would bring with it, so we would have grave concerns. Coming back toyour first question, Senator, certainly out in the workplace, whether it is real or perceived,there is a great fear about the state legislation in fact mirroring what has been put forwardas the bill that we are discussing today.

CHAIR —I would like to thank you very much for your submission.

ECONOMICS


[10.10 a.m.]

FORAN, Mr Wayne, Fitter and Turner, Comalco, and Member of the Construction,Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Third Floor, 361 Kent Street, Sydney, NewSouth Wales 2000

FORAN, Mrs Frances, Registered Nurse, Member of the Queensland Nurses Union,12 Ina Court, Weipa, Queensland

GOULD, Mr Nigel, Truck Driver-Loader Driver, Comalco, and Member of theConstruction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, PO Box 417, Weipa, Queensland

HANSEN, Miss Jodi, 1 Mankina Court, Weipa, Queensland

PRENDEVILLE, Mr Mick, Process Worker, Comalco, Kaolin Plant, and Member ofthe Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Third Floor, 361 Kent Street,Sydney, New South Wales 2000

RUTHERFORD, Mr David, Electrician, Comalco, and Member of the Construction,Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Third Floor, 361 Kent Street, Sydney, NewSouth Wales 2000,

CHAIR —Miss Hansen, in what capacity are you appearing before the committee?

Miss Hansen—I am the wife of a worker at Comalco.

CHAIR —I welcome you all to the hearing. Have you worked out amongstyourselves an order for the presentation?

Mr Gould —Yes, if I may speak on that. At the moment we are at the Hilton withthe deputy president, Anne Harrison. Unfortunately our organiser, Mr Glen Batchelor, is inthe middle of the IRC at the moment, so I apologise for his absence. Also Mrs EstherRutherford could not make it because of work commitments; she had to go back to Weipa.Mrs Marie Wehlow also could not make it because of work commitments.

I would like to pick up on a matter in your program of the inquiry into workplacerelations. Next to Mr Mick Prendeville’s name it says, ‘Employee and sole remainingaward worker at Comalco, Weipa.’ I assure you that he is not the sole award workerworking for Comalco, Weipa. It is only at his kaolin plant that he is the only one who hashad the courage to stay on it for four years. I am sure you will find out about that later.He is the sole person at that kaolin plant, not Weipa. We picked that up straight away.

I would just like to start with Mr Rob Diamond. I rang up Rob and faxed him tosay that, if this inquiry could have come to Weipa, this whole room would have been

ECONOMICS


packed out. I assure you now that, with the dire financial straits that we are in just forbeing unionists, which I am sure our members here will tell you about exactly, you wouldhave been here just in Weipa for six weeks. You would have caught a few good fishthere, too.

CHAIR —It sounds very pleasant at this stage.

Mr Gould— I believe that you have got a Weipa book there and at the end of mynervous talk I will ask you to turn to page 57. I am a truck driver in Weipa. I drive 150-tonne haul trucks and loaders. I love my job to start off with, that is the main thing I feel.I just love my job. It is a great job and Weipa is a great place. The first thing I want tosay—like everyone here—is that our wives and children have stuck by us through all ofthis contract system. This is what I call life under the bill through the CRA contractsystem or Australian work agreements, as I think you can relate to.

In relation to the Senate inquiry into the workplace relations bill, I would like toexpress my views on these points. I do not promise to be an expert and to have read 300pages of your act. I am a truck driver. I am proud of it and these are the true facts thathave really affected us and I have no doubt will affect every Australian. It really hits mehard, the impact of the proposed legislation on the balance between work and familyresponsibilities. I assure you the family responsibilities and the pressure that will be put onus through this act, no-one else has even experienced it like we have in Weipa and theother places. It is just phenomenal.

Because we stood collectively, we were made second-rate citizens and given lowerclass segregation, as you will see from our other members here. This was all due to notaccepting the contract system—and I stress this, the contract system. CRA, RTZ andComalco divided our town with their biased attitudes and have made financial difficultiesby lowering living standards for us and our children. I say this right now to you, the payof a good mate of mine has dropped because he is an award worker. He now has to sellthings off. This is in Weipa. He has to sell things off just to have bread on the table athome because he stuck by being a unionist. This has happened now in Weipa. I was justliving on the breadline financially and other people here who you will hear about. This isthrough this contract because we stayed by the union. I cannot say enough about theemotional stresses on the family.

Trying to balance working differences with the town being the judge on humanvalues makes family responsibilities difficult at times due to the unnecessary stress forcedon us. I can feel it coming out of me now, the stress that we have had through this. It isincredible stress. I just ask that Senator Murray listens to what we are saying here fromour hearts. The stress that we have been put under is incredible. The family as a unit andmy Christian values tell me that the family should stay together. Under this system wehave been absolutely decimated.

ECONOMICS


Small business in Weipa is the contractors who work off us. The major contractors,who were CRA and RTZ Comalco, now follow the company’s system of remuneration ofwhat they think a person—can I say that loudly—is worth. This is just a person; not yourvalue as a great worker or good truck driver or what the person is worth. Unfortunately,for the workers involved they are not even paid the base award rate: The contractors inWeipa are not even paid the base award rate. I am not saying all; it is several, becausethey copy the company now. Because of this mentality, a bias will spread through theworking class of Australia. We have seen it. We are in the bush there and because we areso isolated you would not believe that we have people who come up there and have noaccommodation. The company owns everything. The contractors own the house and theyare not even on the award wage up there because of what has happened. There is nounionisation. They know that the company just does it at will and the contractors copy it. Iam not saying all contractors—please, I am stressing that. As our CFMEU building andconstruction organiser, who is here in this room today, has said, there are hundreds ofthousands of dollars in back payments and he has only picked the tip of the iceberg upthere. And these are the company’s preferred contractors. The living standards havedropped so much.

I want to refer to (k) in the terms of reference which refers to the extent to whichstate legislation on unfair dismissals complements or will complement the proposedlegislation. CRA RTZ Comalco have a so-called fair treatment system. I ask you to listento this carefully, please—a so-called fair treatment system. This is their in-house policy oflistening to workers’ grievances. If you have got trouble, you go to their in-house—youhave to, by the way. If this system is so fair, would you, the senators here today, haveallowed six coalition senators here, just to listen to what is happening? I will just give toyou how the in-house system goes. The fair treatment starts with my superintendent, to mymanager, to the general manager at Weipa, to the managing director at Brisbane headoffice. The managing director is judge, jury and executioner. That is, blatantly, what he is.

After all these diversions are done and the issue is unsolved, then you go to thegrievance procedure. That is the system you go to next, our grievance system through theunion. It is Comalco’s law that we have to go through the fair treatment system first. Iassure you that the legislation on unfair dismissal involving this—you go through thecompany first. If you have ever been through one of these fair treatment systems—it takesa minimum of two to three weeks to go through—you would understand why, if you arenot ground down by then you will be in the end, and then you go through the propersystem. I assure you, it takes a rugged breed of people. We have lasted out for all theseyears; Mick even more because he has been in the system for four years being alone as asole unionist there. The system is so blatant and I cannot describe the anguish that ourfamilies have been under because of the system. It is really heartfelt.

I assure you that anyone who intends working with equal bargaining power, as theproposed bill suggests, is misled. From May 1994, no contract, no start! That is just it.When the contract system first started they said, ‘We have got 90 per cent of people that

ECONOMICS


agree.’ That is absolutely false. When the contract system first came out only 25 per centof the people took that contract. Twenty-five per cent of the people made a choice, but itis the grounding down. You will find out how we were ground down and are still beingground down. May I say this is all by the law; we are still being ground down.

There is the intimidation of plant close-down. As Michael will tell you, in hissection he is the only member left. There was intimidation that his plant might closedown, so all of a sudden everyone signed. The intimidation at the Bell Bay smelter was agood one. Their plant was going to close down. I can only tell you the intimidation thatkeeps coming forward all the time.

CRA RTZ Comalco have no free choice to enter their Australian workplaceagreement. You are not offered a choice to be an active union member and there is noequilibrium to financial standards between a contract worker and an award worker. Iassure you, right now, that my back pay that I am going for is $10,400. That is thecompany’s system that they have worked out. I assure you that I grossed $33,000. Mymate who drives the same truck as me and the same loader, last financial year made$54,000 on average. But all because I am a unionist my kids cannot go to boarding schoollike anyone else. I am flat out getting anything my kids want all because I want to be aunionist. To be honest, a lot of people—I am not being rude here—have the arse out oftheir pants in Weipa because they are unionists and they are being ground down.

The IRC handed down its decision in March and we collectively accepted it, yetwe are back in the commission today. As a collective we got together and said, ‘Yes,we’ll accept equal pay, it has been awarded to us,’ but the company dragged it out. Weare there again—this has been three to four years. You wonder why people survive. Weare a good breed in Weipa because we stuck together. It is just that people do notunderstand what contract is doing to people. It is ripping the guts out of the families, itreally is.

The bill will aggravate problems of inequity and discrimination as we have seen atWeipa with fellow workers on several occasions. I say several occasions. Two weeks agomy truck driving mate, a migrant worker, could not understand a computer system theyjust put in a truck. He was abused, and had been abused. He has collapsed and nothinghas been done because he is an award person. And the story goes on, all because he is anaward person. The stories can go on and on. The company has a way of handling theissues: they turn a blind eye or relocate the victim. This does not stop the discriminationor harassment when the fair treatment system must be accessed first for a resolution.

As approved by the Industrial Relations Commission, individual discriminationexists; we have proved it in the courts, it exists. What more can we do? I am still $20,000a year under my mate who drives the same truck, and we have agreed to the terms of theagreement and nothing is being done, nothing at all.

ECONOMICS


The only way we get justice is by industrial action; that is the only way that wegot in court. This bill that you have emphasises the punishment of industrial action ratherthan resolution. Justice will never prevail. We have the back-up of all the unions ofAustralia, and not just the unions of Australia, the average workers, the blokes, thepensioners that send us money, the single mums that send us money to support us, thosesorts of people. People do not understand what is going on. And you want to put discrimi-nation and punishment on unions because they stick up for their mates. I ask you to lookseriously at this bill.

The bill is long and complex and I am not prepared to be a genius on it—it is 300pages. It does not look after the average worker. We have seen the experience of bastardi-sation of these proposed changes at Weipa. Boy, have we seen them!

My main principle for collective bargaining and unionism is for the average workerto stand up for their rights and justice for fellow workers. Otherwise there is a loss ofcollective strength and a loss of conditions and, for future generations, it will allowcorporate giants to win in the long run. It just grinds you down.

I ask you now in my heart and soul to listen, especially you, Senator Murray—please listen. Look at my Christian values, my family responsibilities and the pleasure ofliving in Weipa—I love Weipa and I love my job. We have to keep fighting for equaljustice and respect, and I ask you for that.

In finishing up, I ask you to please turn to page 57 of the book,Weipa heroes—theroll of honour. We are here for all these people, and there is 900 years of service therefrom these workers. Since this roll has been done a couple have faded because thepressure got to them.

Let us be honest: the reason people sign a contract is for the dollar and it is ourfriends who sign contracts. They are our work mates. My best mate signed it. The reasonhe did it was for the dollar because he had responsibilities, he had a family. I canunderstand that. There is no bitterness in Weipa. People have to understand that. All thatwe are asking for is the same value for our work; that is all we are asking. I am askingyou on behalf of people from Weipa and Hamersley who stuck their necks out—900 yearsof service in a place that has a 25 per cent turnover rate; that is what we are talking aboutin Weipa. We have got migrants from everywhere—Italy, Greece—and notice that they allstick to here. We have stuck up for people and I am asking you for all the people here:please listen to what are you going to do with this bill, because I am telling you from myheart and soul that it is going to rip the guts out of Australia. Thank you.

CHAIR —Who would like to follow?

Mr Prendeville—I am just going to tell you things that I have seen happen whereI work since these contracts have come in. When they brought the contracts in, there was

ECONOMICS


pressure. You were put in a room with your manager and your superintendent, the twopeople where you work who are capable of firing you on the spot for a grossmisdemeanour. They said, ‘This is your contract. This is how we have worked it out andthis is the money we will give you.’ Then they set you an artificial deadline and tell youthat you have to have the contract signed by then, otherwise it will never be available toyou again. So people were under pressure to sign for the dollars there. There were majorincreases in the money.

I asked quite a few people why they signed. Just to reiterate what Nigel said, itwas for the money only. There are people who are still on the award, still union memberswho have signed. I asked one guy the other day who said, ‘Yep, I am retaining my unionmembership because I don’t trust them. I only signed for the dollars.’ It was the moneythat was talking there.

Under the contract system some things have changed around the place. The safetyhas changed. There was a lot more emphasis put on it by the company but, from what Isee, the common workers are rushing through their jobs. They do not do lock-outs andthings correctly like they normally would because they want to be able to turn around andsay, ‘I can do this job so quickly’ and they get that taken into account in their perform-ance effectiveness review. They will not mention the fact that they bypass safety systemsto do this sort of thing.

Where I work at kaolin we are employing more and more what they call permanentcasuals. These are contracted in from another firm. These people work alongside me ascasual workers without the same rights as me, without accommodation or anything likethat, for less money than I do. If they do get, say, the same sort of accommodation as Ihave got, they will be paying up to $90 a week more than I do for this accommodation.

Because I am an award worker and an active unionist I am subject to abuse fromsome people around town. I have been abused twice this year. The last time was in thepub just when the Bledisloe Cup was on because I was wearing a union hat.

CHAIR —Mr Prendeville, I am keen that everyone here have an opportunity to saya few words. We have unfortunately a time frame which means in this section wedefinitely cannot go beyond 11 o’clock at the very latest. Everybody here, I understand,wants to make a brief presentation, so if you could highlight the main points you want tomake and then we need to allow enough time for us to ask any questions as well.

Mr Prendeville—I will just say to finish off that I have been disadvantaged byremaining under the award. I have been told by my superintendent that my careerprospects are no good for doing this sort of thing. If this is the sort of future that Australiahas got to look forward to, I hope not. Thank you.

Mr Rutherford —I have only a few points I wanted to bring up. The main one that

ECONOMICS


is of concern to me is the reduction of the Industrial Relations Commission’s powers.After our dispute last year, it became obvious to us that they have these powers. Some-times they fail to act on them; sometimes they do. This trouble that we have in Weipa hasdragged out for almost four years now with the powers the Industrial Relations Commis-sion has now. If those powers are reduced, it will be an open brawl as far as I can see.

The moment we tried to go through the Industrial Relations Commission, thecompany kept stalling and stalling and putting QCs and whatever up against our delegatesand things like that. It was brought to a head last year when we were all set for acommission hearing here in Cairns. We had gone to a lot of expense to either drive or flydown from Weipa as witnesses. The company put up a couple of QCs who had legalargument for two days and canned the whole thing. That was the straw that broke thecamel’s back last year and caused our strike.

The other thing is the secrecy of the contracts. When these contracts are broughtin, there is a clause there that you are not supposed to divulge what you are offered andall that sort of thing. That is the same as what is happening in Weipa and no-one works asa team any more. It has brought in one workmate fighting against another workmate tryingto get his personal assessment up. He is not allowed to say how much he is gettingcompared to the next bloke and no-one talks much any more. I feel it is un-Australian tohave your workmates backstabbing you all day trying to get their PER higher or lookbetter in front of the boss.

As for the contracts, they are very subjective, because in our small community, asthe town is owned and run by Comalco, things outside of work come into your salaryreview. If your children fight with the superintendent’s children at preschool or school orsomething like that, it will reflect badly in your salary review. That is the way it is at themoment under these conditions. I would hate to see that go Australia wide.

Mr Foran —I have a few things to say as well. I have been 22 years this time inWeipa and I have seen it go from start-up to what it is now. This is one of the thingsComalco used to encourage the signing of the contracts. I can give you these figuresbecause I asked the accountant yesterday for them. When they started, I was on $51,000 ayear, the next year, $45,000, the next year $45,000 and then last year $39,000. They didthat to virtually everyone and the value they offered me was $56,400 to go on to contract.To do that, I had to trust them and I just could not do that. They made 30 peopleredundant just a few years ago. A few of them were really good friends.

Also in our section in the last 12 months, they have dropped the guys’ paysthere—this is the contract staff—by $4,600 in 12 months. They have done that simply bychanging their shift roster. You get a certain roll allowance for the hours you work and theroster you work. They have changed their roster twice now and that has cost them the$4,600. Once you sign that contract, where can you end up? Can you end up back at thebare minimum? You have no bargaining power; no choice; no nothing. I am talking only

ECONOMICS


about my section with this one. Quite a few of those guys reckon that, if they drop anymore, they will be signing back to the union.

Mrs Foran—I do not have a great deal to say, but I am gravely concerned as aregistered nurse and as the wife of a strong union supporter and as a unionist myself. Myknowledge of the bill is not that extensive. I find it terrifying for my children and for thefuture of Australia, because I believe very few companies and governments will not takeadvantage of the minimum awards—particularly within a female dominated profession,such as nursing, and particularly in a place like Queensland. It has taken 11 years for meto achieve the award conditions in Queensland that I left in New South Wales. Now, withthe introduction of this bill, I feel that I will be pushing again for another 11 years.

CHAIR —Thank you, Mrs Foran. Miss Hansen, do you wish to speak?

Miss Hansen—As a wife of a unionist and Comalco worker in Weipa, I just wantto say that, with the salary system as it is, the main reason why a lot of these people havesigned the salary system is the money. My husband earns approximately $15,000 less thanthe salary workers as he is on the award. He has workmates who refuse to do overtimebecause they are going to get exactly the same amount of money whether they go in anddo extra work or not. In the first two weeks of returning from the dispute that we had lastyear, my husband did approximately 36 hours overtime because the salary workers refusedto do this overtime. I feel that is a lot of overtime to be asked of anyone, and the familyresponsibilities that he does have suffer because of this.

I have personally been discriminated against because my husband is in the union. Iam self-employed. I do child care. I had been asked to look after the managers’ childrenbut, because of my husband’s affiliation with the union, I was refused this job by thesemanagers. It was not because of the quality of care that I could offer or anything like that.I was refused because my husband was in the union. So it has affected me financially aswell.

The fair treatment process is the process which the company uses, and I am a bitworried about that. It basically says that the same company people review the issues againand you find that they come to the same conclusions. You do not get any justice out ofthe system that they are proposing here.

Something of concern that my husband has also asked me to bring up is the safetyissue. When the salary people have safety meetings, a lot of them do not want to bring upsafety issues because they will be seen as whingers by their bosses. They have often askedmy husband to bring up safety issues because they do not want to look like they arewhingeing, and it may affect their PERs if they are seen by their bosses as being whin-gers. That is basically what I wanted to raise.

CHAIR —Thank you, Miss Hansen. Given Mr Gould’s appeals specifically to

ECONOMICS


Senator Murray, I might give Senator Murray the first call.

Senator MURRAY—Mr Gould, my first question is: why me? Why have youfingered me out for your remarks?

Mr Gould —I believe, Senator, that you are a Democrat. Is that correct?

Senator MURRAY—That is correct, yes.

Mr Gould —And I believe that, in the Senate, you will control the balance on thisbill.

Senator MURRAY—Yes. We will, not I will.

Mr Gould —I beg your pardon—

Senator MURRAY—I have a boss too, Mr Gould.

Mr Gould —I hope it is not our managing director. I feel that, if you do not blockthis bill or get it reassessed dramatically, what we have been through in Weipa will spreadcompletely through Australia. It will pick only on the weak, unfortunately, as we haveseen here. It will pick on the weak and the defenceless. I have seen it stick out so much,and that is why I appeal to you, Senator.

Senator MURRAY—Thank you, now I understand. My question follows the lineyou have just taken. One company times can hardly be described as creating a competitivelabour market. Is it your belief that rural and remote communities such as yours needspecial protection in industrial relations legislation over and above more competitivelabour markets such as major cities?

Mr Gould —Very much so. I think classic examples of that are Argyle diamonds—where the guys are flown in—and remote places like that. When they say jump, you haveto say, ‘How high do I have to jump?’ That is just the way it is. You have no housing inWeipa if you go against the company, if you go against your boss. You cannot negotiateyour wage. Contractors or anybody cannot negotiate their wage.

It is just pure discrimination and it has been proven in the Industrial RelationsCourt. That is the sad thing about it. We have been discriminated against and other peoplehave, but we have no-one there. We have a full-time organiser now who has just been sentup there and a few things have been fixed up. It is a long way to go. We are only a speck,unfortunately. It is very sad.

Senator MURRAY—With the exception of special provisions in both this bill andprevious acts for anti-discrimination legislation, for instance, it has been a tradition in

ECONOMICS


industrial relations legislation in this country that it is a common system for everyone.You do appreciate that what you are implying is that the system should be stronger orweaker depending upon the nature of the community affected. Whether they be women,rural and remote communities or young persons, the result is that you are arguing forspecial protection for certain sectors.

Mr Foran —It was something that came out when we first had the strike. Yourson, who is, say, 16 or 17 years old, is going for his first job. He has to sit down in frontof a personnel manager, maybe a manager or an owner of a business.

Mr Gould —And a psychiatrist too, I might add.

Mr Foran —If it is a big place like Comalco, yes. He has to argue his own termsand conditions. Do you think that is fair? I do not think that is right at all.

Senator MURRAY—You have answered my question that you do believe thatindividual sectors have to be protected. My last question relates to your own experience. Itis a line of questioning I have been following through the country.

One of the possible consequences of this bill—and, of course, no-one ever knowswhat the consequences of any legislation are until it is in, whether it be better thanexpected or worse than expected—is that it will force greater militancy in the industrialcommunity, a return to what some refer to as the bad old days where union activismmight be the only way to counter very strong employer activism. Is it your view fromyour experience that this bill will contribute to more militancy, more days lost, lessproductivity, damage Australia’s competitiveness and damage our international reputationor otherwise?

Mr Gould —We got picked on because we were weak. To be honest, we werewusses up there. We were not even a militant unionised place. We were wusses in Weipa.

Senator MURRAY—They turned you militant through their actions?

Mr Gould —Because of their actions. I hate to say it and be really sad about it, wewere wusses in Weipa. We were the most unmilitant place around. They picked on theweak. They picked on the unorganised. From seeing it through people being so upset—Ican honestly and truly say, and I swear by this—I can see people doing something verydrastic, and I mean very drastic to the extreme, if people are pushed too far. I mean that,heart and soul.

Senator MURRAY—Is the problem with the employer and not the system theyused? It has been clearly stated to us that there are rogue employers and there are goodemployers; there are rogue employees and good employees. Was it the way in which theyconducted the individual contract negotiation which was the problem or the actual

ECONOMICS


individual contract approach?

Mr Foran —There are two things with that: firstly, the way they went aboutgetting the people to sign the contracts, by dropping wages and then offering the cherry atthe end; and, secondly, they are starting to show their hand with the dropping of contractwages. What you can see happening in Weipa is what you are proposing. Maybe youshould go up there and have a look.

Senator MURRAY—I am sorry. I was not proposing anything; I was asking aquestion.

Mr Foran —Sorry, what the legislation is proposing.

Senator MURRAY—I am still not clear on the answer. Is it the character of theemployer or the system that matters?

Mr Foran —It is the system.

Senator MURRAY—The coalition would argue that you always get unscrupulousemployers and that there is nothing wrong with the principle of individual bargaining.

Mrs Foran—The legislation is vulnerable to attack and abuse by unfeeling,horrible employers such as CRA RTZ.

Mr Gould —With regard to the turnover at Weipa, I have had two managingdirectors, three general managers, three mine managers and umpteen number of superin-tendents in my six years there. The turnover of people there is why there is such anuntrustworthy environment there. It is a common quote around Weipa that they are therefor the next step up the ladder. They do not give a hoot in Hades about the people there;they are just going the next step up the ladder. Everyone here has seen that.

Senator MURRAY—You would appreciate the difficulty of this committee,though, in taking your individual circumstance and saying that it will automatically applyacross all remote and regional workplaces in Australia. I am aware that in WesternAustralia there are unscrupulous employers and there are good employers.

Mr Foran —There is one other thing too. Comalco does not negotiate yourcontract. They tell you what it is. Four months ago I was told I was going to get a $3,000raise from what I was first offered. I have not done a PER yet, a personal evaluationreview, but they know how much they are going to give me.

Senator FERGUSON—As a group, did you accept the decision of the IndustrialRelations Commission of 23 January?

ECONOMICS


Mr Gould —We did as a group, yes.

Senator FERGUSON—Can I ask you about a couple of comments made by thecommission presided over by President O’Connor. I will quote a couple of the conclusionsand I would like your reaction. At conclusion No. 9 the commission said:

We are satisfied that there is widespread acceptance and support amongst employees for the staffcontract system.

Then they go on to say:

It cannot be said on any view on the evidence before us that the staff contract system, since itsintroduction early in 1994, has resulted in these employees being disadvantaged.

Having said that you accepted the decision, I would like your comment on those twoaspects of their conclusions.

Mr Rutherford —I believe we are still in what we call a honeymoon period. Whenthose contracts were first offered, in our small community we had a turnover of between33 and 36 per cent of our work force in a year. So a third of our work force changesevery year. A lot of those people signed up, took a bit of extra money and then leftbecause they did not want to sign the contracts.

Each contractor I have spoken to, the blokes that I work with, signed up because ofthe money—because we were offered $15,000 to $20,000 a year more than we weremaking on the award. So they were given this big carrot to accept it. Most of the peoplewere sitting in a remote community in a mining town where they were not paid all thatwell. We are paid better than some people but nowhere near what some other mines aregetting. A $20,000 pay rise in some cases was double their wages. A lot of people aregoing to jump at something like that.

Senator FERGUSON—In Weipa how many people are on contracts and howmany are not?

Mr Gould —At the moment roughly about 65 are not on contract, are still award. Iam just going off the top of my head—about 300, roughly.

Senator FERGUSON—Nevertheless, you do not dispute the decision of thecommissioners when they say there was widespread acceptance and support of thecontracts?

Mr Gould —There is no disputing that at all. So would I if I had an extra $20,000in my pocket.

Senator FERGUSON—Go to No. 31 of their conclusions. The commissioners

ECONOMICS


have said:

The evidence discloses a reluctance by the unions in the period leading up to the breakdown over theenterprise bargaining in April 1994 to recognise the need to adopt greater flexibility at the work-place.

Would you care to comment on that decision?

Mr Foran —Yes, I have got quite a good one for that.

Senator FERGUSON—I asked you because it was in their decision, which yousaid you accepted.

Mr Foran —As I said before, I was a fitter and turner. A fitter and turner didfitting and turning and that was it. Through that demarcation, from fitter and turner I wentto welding, plumbing, dogman, rigger, scaffolder, forklift, truck and hire driver, and 20-tonne crane driving. I also had to learn computers and do our own purchase orders, so Ithink we enterprise bargained.

Senator FERGUSON—But what I am saying is that you do still agree with thedecision that says there was a reluctance by the union to recognise the need to adoptgreater flexibility?

Mr Foran —No.

Senator FERGUSON—So you do not accept that part. Okay; I am just gettingthis right because originally you said that you accepted the decision.

The other thing they say is that—and this is the commission’s report:

The decision should not be interpreted as having any implications regarding the operation of staffcontracts and/or performance based schemes which operate outside awards beyond Weipa.

Yet you have tried to translate all of the things that are happening to you by saying that iswhat is happening in Weipa and it is going to happen everywhere else.

Mrs Foran—Under your legislation, Senator, it will.

Senator FERGUSON—Let me say that this is the decision which you havealready agreed with. I cannot ask all the questions. I know that Senator Chapman has gota couple in which he will quote you passages of the legislation. That might put a differentview if you read the exact terms of the legislation. I will leave my questioning therebecause I know we have only five minutes.

Senator MACKAY —Firstly, what sort of negotiation and consultation was there

ECONOMICS


with the individuals about the terms of the contracts?

Mr Rutherford —None.

Senator MACKAY —What do you mean ‘none’?

Mr Rutherford —I was the union delegate then and we started off in the kaolinplant with trying to implement enterprise bargaining. It dragged on and on, and in the endthe company refused to talk while they had union officials there and just kept on stalling.They turned around and came back with a document—I think it was about 150 pageslong—which none of the workers had any input into at all and said, ‘There it is.’ Werejected that, and then they turned around and said, ‘That’s the enterprise bargaining.We’ve finished with it now. You don’t want to have any part of that,’ and finished thatera and then introduced individual contracts.

Mr Prendeville—I just add to that that enterprise bargaining was at the kaolinplant. Grant Thorn, the general manager at the time, walked in and said, ‘This is theenterprise bargaining agreement. This is the first and final draft. There is no negotiation onthis.’ Boom; that was it.

Senator MACKAY —Right. What about the right of entry provisions? I understandthere was a right of entry provision in the award. What happened with the union officialswho went onto the site to talk to workers under the right of entry provision in youraward?

Mr Gould —Our full-time organiser, Glen Batchelor, said that, in all his 15 yearsof being a full-time union official, he had never come across a company that actuallyasked for all his details. He has never come across it in his life. This company straightaway needed all the forms and had to go through procedures that he has never comeacross before in his life. So it is blatant discrimination. He could not even get a house. Wehave got a full-time ACTU organiser up there. He could not get a house. It was justcoincidence that the company owns all the houses too, so he just could not get a house. Inall his years, he has never come across any company that makes you show all thedocumentation to get just a right of entry.

Senator MACKAY —When he finally got into the site, how did his consultationwith his union members occur? Did he wander around having a chat to people? How wasit organised?

Mr Gould —We had to call a stop-work meeting. It was the only way to get usaltogether.

Senator MACKAY —Right. You talked earlier about this continuing dispute aboutback pay and the company’s refusal to pay proper back pay. I understand it was an AIRC

ECONOMICS


order to pay back pay?

Mr Gould —Very much so.

Miss Hansen—Yes.

Senator MACKAY —So what we have got here is the company defying an AIRCorder.

Mr Gould —That is correct. That is what we are doing at the Hilton today. Theyjust drag it out, and people are just getting ground down into the ground.

Senator MACKAY —What about the extent of conditions that were offered toindividuals who are on contract compared to the conditions that those who did not sign thecontracts have? What difference was there? Was it just money or were there other aspectsinvolved?

Miss Hansen—No.

Mr Gould —That is only the tip of the iceberg, that $20,000 difference betweenmyself and my mate. There are air fares, superannuation, health funds. That is just the tipof the iceberg, and the trouble is that people on contract do not believe you when you tellthem what the wage difference is because they do not know how much the worker next tothem gets. They just cannot believe it.

Mr Rutherford —They fudge the sickies too. I think it came out in the commis-sion report that the company table was that sickies had dropped off since people had goneonto individual contracts. The truth of the matter is that my section—my supervisor andthe other supervisor I have spoken with—have been instructed not to record any sickleave, because we have some people in our section who this year have had 30 sickiesalready, under a certificate from a doctor, yet they are not recorded. It is just fudging thefigures. It is the same with the witnesses they took down to the commission hearing. Theywere just those hand picked, and they even hired a plane to fly them from Weipa to hereso they did not use our normal plane. They hired a light plane and flew them to Sydney.

Mr Foran —There is one other thing which is added to the contract too. If they dowork any overtime, they take that time in lieu, where if you were on the award and youworked overtime, too bad, you come back to work tomorrow, whereas a contractor doesnot.

Senator MACKAY —Could I ask one final question? Can I just get it really clearwhat is happening to these people on contracts now? There is some reference from acouple of people here that there has started to be a diminution in conditions and wages ofthe people on contract. Do you want to just reiterate because I was not quite clear on that?

ECONOMICS


Mr Foran —What happened was, when they went onto the contract, we wereworking what they called 10 on, four off; that was seven days where you worked 12 hoursSaturday-Sunday, and then the last three days of that worked night shift. Then you hadfour days off. That was worth $14,200 in roll allowance. Then they dropped the threenight shifts and just went 10 days straight. They changed you from working Saturday andSunday 12 hours, to 12 hours on Wednesday, 12 hours on Saturday and 12 hours onWednesday. That was worth $12,000 roll allowance. They have just changed them again.It would take too long to explain the roster. There are four 12-hour shifts, sometimes threedays off and sometimes four days off, and sometimes three 12-hour shifts. It is a realcrazy thing. That dropped the roll allowance back to $9,200.

Senator MACKAY —So whoever signed those contracts must be pretty disappoint-ed.

Mr Foran —Yes.

Mr Gould —Very much so. John Howard said no-one would lose any money. It ishappening already with the biggest mining corporations in the world. I hate to see whatthe little contractors will do.

Senator MURRAY—Was there any discussion with workers with regard tochanges of the shifts?

Mr Foran —Yes. There was discussion. They walked in and said, ‘You can havethis roster, which is $5,000 roll allowance, or you can have this roster which is $9,000 rollallowance, and that is your choice.’

Senator MURPHY—But not in respect of the actual shifts themselves and theperformance driving capacity of a shift, whether a shift is good, bad or not. There were nodiscussions about that?

Mr Foran— No.

Senator MACKAY —Would you agree with the statement that this was obviouslydesigned to get people out of the union and the award to get the individual contractssystem in and, thereby, on the pretext of people getting increased wages, what we will seeis a cut in those wages and conditions?

Mr Gould —Absolutely. It was just a planned scheme right from the start.Unfortunately, the people at Weipa threw a spanner in the works. We were not broughtout. It is a pleasure to be with these people here—these workers. They have courage.

Senator CHAPMAN—All of these difficulties that you have experienced havehappened under the existing legislation that was introduced by the previous Labor

ECONOMICS


government in the past, is that a fact?

Mr Gould —That is correct, yes.

Mr Prendeville—They also gave us the ability to fight that through the commis-sion.

Senator CHAPMAN—Just a moment ago Mr Gould said that Mr Howard gave apromise that no-one would be worse off and have their take-home pay reduced. You aresaying this is happening. But he is blaming Mr Howard for what is happening underlegislation that has not even come in yet.

Mr Foran —No.

Senator CHAPMAN—Yes, you did. You just said that Mr Howard made apromise. It has not come in yet, this legislation.

CHAIR —I have already asked for Mr Foran to continue the answer he com-menced.

Senator CHAPMAN—But—

CHAIR —Order! Mr Foran, please.

Mr Foran —What happened under the Labor Party is—we are all very disappoint-ed with what happened with the Industrial Relations Commission. We thought it had moreguts than it did and that it could stand up for itself. We are saying that what has happenedto us is what they are trying to legislate in. If it comes in, you will not find one companylike Comalco; you will find heaps.

Senator MURPHY—There are a few.

Mr Gould —In response to that legislation, you are correct. It was Keatinggovernment legislation. Under the change of government, I can see with this legislationnothing but wages dropping, as we have seen already. I can see nothing but wagesdropping because the boss will just have power over the workers.

Senator CHAPMAN—The principal reason why you have not gone onto contractsis because of this exclusion of your union membership as part of the contract. Is thatright?

Mr Gould —No. You have got that completely wrong. We can be union members.The sad thing about it is that most tradesmen are all union members. Most people on siteare union members except for the people who have not renewed. Most of them are union

ECONOMICS


members. You cannot be an active union member. If you attend a stop-work meeting, thatis noted on your personal evaluation review. It is reflected in it. If you go to a stop-workmeeting, it will be reflected in your PER.

Senator CHAPMAN—Would being an active union member include being anofficer or delegate?

Mr Gould —Just being a member.

Senator CHAPMAN—If you were an officer or delegate, you would be active.

Mr Gould —That is correct.

Mr Rutherford —It is similar to subscribing to a magazine where, when you get it,you cannot read it.

Senator CHAPMAN—That is happening under the current Labor legislation.

Mr Gould —That is correct. It has happened. I have no doubt of that.

Senator CHAPMAN—I draw your attention to the bill. The various subclauses ofclause 298 specifically preclude an employer reinforcing the strength of freedom ofassociation objects of the act and the objects set out in section 3 ensure that employers,employees and independent contractors are free to join industrial associations of theirchoice. Clause 298K says:

(1) An employer must not, for a prohibited reason, or for reasons thatinclude a prohibited reason,do or threaten to do any of the follow-ing:(a) dismiss an employee;(b) injure an employee in his or her employment;(c) alter the position of an employee to the employee’s

prejudice;(d) refuse to employ another person—

and this next one I think would be most relevant to your situation—

(e) discriminate against another person in theterms or conditions on which the employer offers toemploy the other person.

A ‘prohibited reason’ is if a person:

(a) is, has been, proposes to become or has at any timeproposed to become an officer, delegate or memberof an industrial association; or

ECONOMICS


(b) is not, or does not propose to become, a member ofan industrial association;

So, quite clearly, under this legislation an employer is prohibited from discriminatingagainst you in the terms that they have.

Mrs Hansen—But they have.

Mr Rutherford —But they do not enforce that.

Miss Hansen—That may be part of the act, but it is happening.

Senator CHAPMAN—It is the law. It will become the law. It is not the law now,but under this bill it will become the law.

Miss Hansen—And if it does become the law, do you think—

Senator Mackay interjecting—

Senator FERGUSON—Madam Chairman, could I take a point of order. SenatorMackay has already asked a number of questions and Senator Murphy has too. I think thatSenator Chapman should be allowed to ask his questions without comment or debate fromthe other end of the table.

CHAIR —Well, Senator Chapman is being given the opportunity to ask hisquestions. He is being interrupted in a fashion which Senator Chapman himself hasexhibited in the past. Senator Chapman can continue to ask his questions.

Senator CHAPMAN—I beg your pardon, Madam Chairman. I take offence at thatand I ask you to withdraw.

CHAIR —I won’t because it is true. Please continue.

Senator CHAPMAN—This law will be enforced in the way every other law of theland is enforced.

Mr Foran —Can I just ask something there? The Industrial Commission passedinto law what you were reading out there before, didn’t they?

Senator CHAPMAN—No. This is the bill that we—

Mr Foran —No, isn’t the decision from the Industrial Commission actually law?

Senator CHAPMAN—No, that was their conclusion.

ECONOMICS


Mr Foran —Okay, why are we sitting over here now six months after that hascome through?

Senator FERGUSON—Why don’t you ask the people who drafted the originallaw?

Mr Foran —But that is the law. Are you going to enforce the law any better thanit is currently being enforced?

Mrs Foran—And against companies like CRA.

Senator CHAPMAN—Of course the law will be enforced against companies ifthey break the law.

Mrs Foran—Senator Chapman, if you believe that then you are in cuckoo land.

Senator CHAPMAN—Well, I am not in cuckoo land.

Mrs Foran—If you believe that that law is going to stop companies like CRA,then go back to cuckoo land and leave the real world to us.

Senator CHAPMAN—I could give you example after example of where the law isquite adequately enforced against corporations of all shapes and sizes. So do not suggestthat because it is a big company the laws are not enforced against them. They are quiteclearly enforced against them by the corporations law, by all sorts of laws.

Mrs Hansen—Just because it is a law does not mean to say that they are notgoing to try to break it if the opportunity—

Senator CHAPMAN—Well, they may try to break it. If they try to break it, theyare then committing an offence so action will be taken against them.

Mrs Hansen—How?

Mr Foran —How are you going to instigate that action? If it is just me, by myself,in Weipa, what do I do? What is the mechanism for me to enforce that?

Mrs Foran—Under the act that you are proposing?

Senator CHAPMAN—If it is an individual contract you would go to the—

Mrs Hansen—The fair treatment process that the company proposes?

Senator CHAPMAN—No, you would go to the employment advocate. If it is a

ECONOMICS


collective agreement, you would go to the Industrial Relations Commission.

Mr Foran —But I have to do that by myself; I have to find the funds to get to theindustrial advocate. He is not going to come up and see me, is he?

Senator MACKAY —He may not take your case, either.

Senator CHAPMAN—You do not have to go and see him initially; you couldwrite to him.

Mr Foran —So I am sitting without a job for how long until he decides, ‘Yes, I’lltake it; yes I’ll do something about it; yes I’ve got an answer for you.’ In that time, withthe other legislation they are talking about with unemployment and that—

Senator CHAPMAN—Just hang on a minute. This has already happened to youunder the existing legislation. What I am saying is that these proposals actually put you ina better circumstance than you currently are.

Mrs Foran—That existing legislation opened the door for enterprise bargainingwhich the spirit of unions, workers and employers embraced. We were all happy to think,‘Right, finally.’ That existing legislation also opened the door for the bastardisation andthe introduction of contracts which has been abused and used continually since 1992 bycompanies such as CRA. Your bill leaves that as the law of the land, and we are here asproof that that abuse occurs, even under the protective covering that we have with theAIRC. Your bill is stripping that away. You want to tell us that that will not happen underyours and that we have got protection. Senator, go back to cloud-cuckoo-land.

Senator CHAPMAN—I will not go back to cloud-cuckoo-land. That is exactlywhy the protection is there.

CHAIR —Final point, please, Senator Chapman.

Senator CHAPMAN—I have got no more points to make. I have made the point.

Senator MURPHY—With regard to this question of what has happened to thepeople at Weipa under the existing legislation, and Senator Chapman’s view that somehowthey will be miraculously protected under the proposed legislation, I would draw SenatorChapman’s attention to the existing legislation—which is also law—and that is section334A of the existing act. I would suggest to you, Senator, that if you read that you willsee that the section to which you refer in the proposed legislation is somewhat significant-ly weaker than what is existing legislation, which does not stop employers from notabiding by legislation.

Indeed, the commission decision that Senator Ferguson read from earlier is a

ECONOMICS


decision that relates to the payment of wages to the people from Weipa. But the companyhas not abided by the decision, and the new proposed act will not even allow thecommission to make a decision in respect of the payment of these people with regard towhether or not they be treated fairly.

I am also very interested in what you people have been confronted with. I havebeen reading a Weipa contract and it interests me with regard to the hours of work and theway in which the contract is written. The coalition would like you to believe that theproposals under the new legislation would allow for greater consultation and participationin the discussion with regard to your working conditions. But I am curious about how youdeal with a situation where it says:

Your remuneration is for the performance of your role and not hours spent at work.

For me, I could think to myself, ‘That is good, because if I have been given a job to doand if I can get it done in six hours or four hours, then I can piss off home. But it doesnot say that because it goes on to say:

While the normal working week is 40 hours—

So I am not sure whether, if you can do your work in 40 hours, you are lucky, but I amnot sure whether it means you cannot work for less than 40 hours. It also goes on to say:

. . . you will be required to work such reasonable time as is necessary to perform your duties.

Whatever that is—but it does not say that you will actually be paid anything for it. Ofcourse, I am curious about this role allowance. It says here:

A Role Allowance may be conferred on staff in Stratum 1 roles where the role involves:

(a) directed hours of work significantly greater than the normal; and/or

(b) patterns of work including back shifts, weekends, or public holidays; and/or

(c) very frequent but unpredictable requirements to attend work matters during off-duties hours.

I know you said earlier that there have been some changes to the payments for roleallowances because of the changes of shifts. It does relate to the shifts because it says:

You will commence your induction period on day shift, and will be advised of your permanent shiftarrangements and hours of work following your induction.

Can you just explain that a little bit further?

Mr Rutherford —I will have a go at that.

ECONOMICS


Senator MURPHY—If I was confronted with this I would not know what itmeans.

Mr Rutherford —What I do not like about those contracts is that, as you can see,it is only a thin document and you can read between the lines. You do not go and play agame of football with one page of rules; you have a whole book of rules. That there doesaway with our award, and that is just a couple of pages.

In my case, I was a project officer when we rewired one of our big machines upthere. The project ended up being about $8 million worth of work. We worked, I think, 30days straight doing 12-hour shifts on it. I got paid my overtime. The person who workedalongside me was actually a supervisor, and his role allowance went up considerablybecause of the extra hours he was putting in. At the end of it he was given, I think, threeweeks leave whereas I started night shift the next day.

Senator MURPHY—I draw Senator Chapman’s attention to this as well because Ifind it very interesting with regard to this company’s approach. At the back of thedocument at page 6 it says:

Your commitment to Comalco—

and it goes on to page 7 and talks about conflicts of interest. It says:

It is a condition of your employment that you do not undertake any paid or unpaid activity which isdamaging to the interest of the Company.

It says also:

Involvement in social, sporting, community, welfare, religious, artistic and political activities wouldnot normally conflict with Company interests.

It is a rather curious statement.

Miss Hansen—Yes, ‘not normally’.

Senator MURPHY—I suggest to all the Senate committee members that they havea good look at the contract and its proposed words. I would just like to ask one questionwith regard to the fair treatment process and the conflict resolution. I do not knowwhether any of you have access to a copy of that but, if anyone has, I would like to havea copy of it.

Mr Gould —Yes, I will get you one.

CHAIR —It would be appreciated if you could have copies for the committeeforwarded on. There are a couple of issues that I would like to highlight with you. Senator

ECONOMICS


Ferguson asked you the question about whether you accepted the commission’s decision.Some people have referred to the commission as an umpire. Would you say that yourexpression of acceptance of the decision was that of an umpire, and that there wereactually segments of it that perhaps you were not that happy with but did accept?

Mr Foran —You have to accept the thing as a whole. If there are bits in it that youdo not like, you cannot pull them out and go back again. You have to accept what theyhand down.

CHAIR —Unlike the company, from what we have just heard?

Mr Foran —Yes.

CHAIR —Would the award which covers you, aside from the issue of thecontracts, be similar to several other awards which actually include within them provisionsregarding the rights, entitlements and responsibilities of union delegates, and terms andreference to industrial action?

Mr Foran —That is correct, yes.

CHAIR —One of those provisions which may well be minimised through theaward simplification process proposed under this bill?

Mr Foran —Yes.

Mr Gould —Very much so.

CHAIR —The point I wanted to highlight in relation to the role allowance is that itis subject to change.

Mr Foran —Yes, that is what I was saying. Because of those shift changes in ourgroup, if they put them on to four on-four off, day-night, their role allowance automatical-ly goes up to $17,000, and if they have hot seat change over it goes to $18,000.

CHAIR —So accepting this contract where 25 per cent of the base salary is one ofthese role allowances—

Mr Foran —No, the role allowance is on top of that.

CHAIR —Oh, it is an allowance. What proportion of the salary would the roleallowance reflect?

Mr Rutherford —Anywhere from no role allowance for somebody who does aMonday to Friday, 8 to 5 o’clock job, to somebody who may be at work six days out of

ECONOMICS


seven and who would attract a higher role allowance.

CHAIR —Somebody could work, say, the Monday to Friday and have zero roleallowance. But it also says here that, if work patterns change for a week or two only, therewould be no change. So, presumably, you could work Monday to Friday, have a week ortwo change, work Monday to Friday for another few weeks, have another week or twochange, and continue on in that pattern?

Mr Foran —Yes.

CHAIR —Has that actually occurred with any of the workers?

Miss Hansen—That is correct, and they do not get any extra money.

Mr Foran —No.

Mr Gould —It is only after four weeks.

Mr Foran —I do not think they have really just pulled it. They work a week andthen change them back, then work a week and change them back.

Mr Rutherford —That is coming to chemical finishes. If anyone does overtimeover and above their roster, they are given time off in lieu. But they have just started tocut that out up there. There are a few of the blokes in the mine and areas. They just say,‘That’s part of your role allowance now; you get paid for that.’

CHAIR —Thank you. That concludes my questions.

Senator MURPHY—I just want to make sure that I understand about accommoda-tion in the contract. It appears to me that the longer you have been there, the larger thehouse you get.

Mr Gould —No.

Senator MURPHY—I would like to get an explanation about what that means.

Mr Gould —What you are reading refers to the containers that the company giveyou. The longer you have been there, the larger the container they give you to move outof town. That is what that is. It is a larger container.

CHAIR —I see. That makes sense to me as well. I would like to thank you verymuch for coming to us here in Cairns today.

Mr Gould —We would like to thank you for listening to us.

ECONOMICS


ECONOMICS


[11.21 a.m.]

NICHOLLS, Ms Pat, President, Cairns Trades and Labour Council and QueenslandNurses Union, Cairns Provincial Council of ACTU, PO Box 284, Cairns, Queensland4870

BUTTENSHAW, Mr Charles James, Organiser, Transport Workers Union, 92Commercial Road, Newstead, Brisbane, Queensland 4006

HANNA, Mr David Arthur, Organiser, Builders Labourers Federation, 366 UpperRoma Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000

ACTING CHAIR (Senator Ferguson)—I welcome the members of the CairnsTrades and Labour Council.

Ms Nicholls—I would like to give a brief overview of the submission that I havealready put in. My perspective is that of a nurse and a working mother with familyresponsibilities so I have asked my colleagues to come along to comment on some of theaspects from the perspective of their industries.

I have a lot of concerns with the proposed changes to the award system. Forexample, the stripping of the awards to the minimum conditions and abolishing paid rateswill have a big impact on the nursing industry. The nurses in Queensland fought long andhard to get a career structure and this has the potential to virtually destroy that. Peoplecannot move through their structured career path if individuals can bargain to have over-award payments in their Australian workplace agreements. If they can bargain and haveover-award payments, the disparity between nurses of similar levels and similar experienc-es would cause problems in the health industry. There would be disparity between nursesfrom one hospital to another, and even between units in the same hospital. Hospitals inrural or remote areas, for example, might not be considered to be in a desirable area;therefore they would have less bargaining power to recruit nurses.

At the moment there is a state-wide shortage of nurses and there is a particularrecruiting problem in remote areas. This would exacerbate all of that. Nursing is aprofession that has a high attrition rate, partly because of the high stress of the industryand conditions and the burn-out of nurses. Nurses have fought long and hard to getprofessional recognition. If their career structure is destroyed, that would go a long way todestroying that professional recognition. Nurses would leave the industry in droves.

I will go on now to the protections for part-time workers. Deregulating part-timehours could lead to the abuse of part-time workers by employers, which is happening tosome extent already in the aged care industry and also in the hospitality industry, which isa big industry in this area. The impact of this proposed legislation on the balance offamily and work responsibilities would be disastrous particularly for women, who make up

ECONOMICS


a big part of the part-time work force and who are juggling their family responsibilitiesand their work and also trying to juggle child-care arrangements. Women in this situationrequire stability and security in respect to hours of work and income, as well as sufficienthours of work to earn a reasonable income. This would be put at risk by that part of thebill.

Women dominated jobs are more likely to be covered by state awards, and womenin the past have been more reliant on the state systems. They have already been disadvan-taged by changes in Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. Restricting access tofederal awards and allowing state agreements to override federal awards would reducewomen’s access to their minimum entitlements as set out in the bill.

I do not believe that the bill will achieve a fair balance between the rights ofemployers and organisations of employees and the rights of unions and workers. Work-place agreements, for example, are secret and not open to independent scrutiny. Thiswould require the individual worker to take action in the courts, if they could, if theyfound out about any possible breach of the minimum standards, and they would berequired to be conversant with the content of all the relevant acts and awards. I know frommy own industry that there are not very many people who are completely conversant withtheir act and award.

This bill appears to have an agenda against unions and workplace trade unionorganisation, especially in regard to right of entry and the potential for victimisation ofemployees. Unions provide a lot of services for their members, including both industrialand professional. The Queensland Nurses Union in this past financial year had $200,000on their budget for things like their annual conference, committee of regional delegatemeetings, and branch newsletters, which are sent regularly to all the branches to keep theirmembership informed. $85,000 was also in the budget for membership training. The unionprovides a lot of professional services for their members. They have bursaries. They havelibrary systems. They assist with research. They provide legal advice, which is animportant part of the nursing industry, and I would suggest to take away any of thosethings would be to disadvantage nurses extremely.

Restricting the powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission isremoving the independent umpire to hear and intervene in disputes. Queensland nurseswould not have gained a 38-hour week or a career structure without the intervention of theArbitration Commission. Even interpretation of the decisions had to be arbitrated on. Forexample, just to bring Queensland nurses up to being level with their interstate colleagues,the five pay point levels for enrolled nurses and recognition of years of experience andprior learning had to be arbitrated on. It was a dispute. Also, after the Queensland nurseswon their career structure then Queensland Health, two years later, tried to destroy theupper levels of that in a review of the career structure and that had to be arbitrated onagain. Even our 38-hour week had to be arbitrated on and took four years of struggling toget.

ECONOMICS


Concerning workplace agreements, experience with enterprise bargaining hasshown that women and workers with little negotiating strength are at a disadvantage at thebargaining table but under the current legislation there are at least significant protectionsfor employees in the enterprise bargaining process such as the no disadvantage test.However, the safety net that is proposed in this legislation is that the agreements bemeasured only against the minimum conditions which leave out significant awardentitlements.

The reason that women earn 85 per cent of the male wage is because of over-award agreements and conditions. Women would be severely disadvantaged by this. In anIR report in 1994 it said that overall, women were more likely to be affected by a rangeof employment provisions including hours of work, overtime, contracted employment andannual leave and family leave.

If the government drops the requirement to consult and inform employees about theagreement and the requirement to have special regard to women and youths and workerswhose first language is not English, this may have the effect of being discriminatory andalso disadvantage casual and part-time employees. With certified agreements there is noprovision in the award to make sure that everybody understands the agreement and what itwould mean for them.

In respect of whether the bill will fulfil Australia’s international obligations withregard to equal pay, it is obvious that this would not be met. It must be equal remunera-tion, the wording of the bill, not equal pay. The reason that women continue to receive 85per cent of the wage is because of over-award payments and extra conditions that fall overand above the base rate. Statistics show that women only get 54 per cent of over-awardpayments that are paid to men.

It is difficult to believe that the bill will ensure that the anti-discriminationconventions are met as well, partly because of the reduction of the powers of the AIRCand partly because of the wording of the bill which reduces the current protections.

With regard to the powers of the Arbitration Commission, the commission has beentrying to remedy these instances of discriminatory award payments. There is currently atest case before the commission which is now in jeopardy by the proposal to repeal theseimportant provisions. The government was given no mandate to instigate this and therewas no mention of this during the coalition’s election campaign. I have spoken to manypeople recently who voted for the coalition and they believed John Howard when he saidthat no worker would be worse off under a coalition government and no worker would betaking home less pay, and family values would be upheld and strengthened.

With regard to training, this bill appears to be devaluing the importance and worthof on-the-job training and of education. The bill implies a general assumption of the lackof worth of education. Even study leave has been removed from the awards, and this is

ECONOMICS


where employees are trying to provide for their own education and training and increasetheir professional development. In regard to the government’s proposal to allow for payreductions for non-productive time due to on-the-job training, who is going to definewhich part of an apprenticeship is not on-the-job training? This will lead to grossexploitation of the young, particularly in the service sector. It also has the potential to leadto a deskilled, uneducated, poorly qualified work force. Any of the successfully industrial-ised countries with high economic growth, such as West Germany, for example, haveplaced a high importance on workplace education and training for an educated work force.

The bill opens the door to exploitation of youth in the work force and compoundsthis situation by cutting youth wages to $3 per hour. Therefore, there is potential fortrainees and apprentices to be paid less than even the junior minimum with no paid off-site or out of hours training.

Senator FERGUSON—Ms Nicholls, can I seek a point of clarification? Did yousay that this bill reduces youth wages to $3 an hour?

Ms Nicholls—That was a proposal to introduce a youth training wage of $3 anhour.

Senator FERGUSON—I am sorry, I do not think it is part of the bill. I justwanted to make sure what you said, that was all.

Ms Nicholls—Perhaps it is not part of the bill. That is a proposal that I haveheard, that youth wages would be $3 an hour for trainees and apprentices, which is lessthan the junior minimum, with no off-site or out of hours training. It also has the potentialthat adult employees on adult wages may be replaced by youths. The bill removes thefairness which is entrenched in the existing industrial relations system, for example, byrequiring employees to bargain on matters now arbitrated and by requiring employees tobargain to secure outcomes over the minimum.

The bill also assumes that parties to the employment relationship have equalbargaining power, and the bill assumes that employees have a free choice to enter or notinto AWAs. The bill emphasises the punishment of industrial action rather than itsresolution. As you all know, no win-win situations are likely to occur if people are beingforced by the big fist to do things when they feel that they are backed into a wall andhave no choice. Even small businesses know that you have a much more successfulbusiness if you have willing, helpful, cheerful employees rather than sullen people who arenot there because they want to be.

The bill fails to ensure that Australia’s labour standards meet our internationalobligations, for example, the ILO convention re family obligations and equal remunerationprovisions, and that is in regard to part-time workers and child-care arrangements. Manyimportant matters of employment will have to be negotiated directly between employer

ECONOMICS


and employee, for example, occupational health and safety issues. I believe that this billwill lead to a casualisation of the work force and particularly disadvantage part-timers andcasuals. The restrictive right of entry provisions in this bill do not recognise the legitimacyand the desirability of unions to enter the workplace and act for and support members. Itdoes not recognise that unions are professional organisations as well as industrial. Thankyou.

CHAIR —Thank you, Ms Nicholls. Mr Hannah.

Mr Hannah —My main concern for the construction industry is the restriction ofthe right of entry for organisers and officials of unions. Currently we have safety issues onsites which do not get adhered to until workers call us in and then we get them fixed.Employers will save the dollar and that is where they save their profits: they start on thesafety first. During the construction of the casino in Cairns, there was $200,000 in wagecomplaints, in superannuation, that was retrieved on that job by the unions through theright of entry and the workers ringing us to come in there to fix those problems up. Thereare currently wage complaints outstanding on the convention centre, with workers therenot being paid the right wages—$4 less. Also, the individual agreements that you proposeto put through will mean that a worker will go in and be told, ‘If you want the job, yousign the form. If you do not like what is on the form, you do not have the job; someoneelse will come and get it.’ We all know the secrecy of it will mean that workers will nothave a lot of choice if they want to work. They either get the lesser rates or nothing.

Intimidation does exist out there and that is reality. It does exist on the jobs, onsafety. ‘Go up there, even though it is unsafe, you go do the job regardless,’ and it is theintimidation and the workers do have the protection of having the union officials to comethrough and to assist them in those areas. The workplace health and safety people inQueensland do not have the resources and/or the manpower to go onto all the sites. Theright of entry is the main issue for us.

Mr Buttenshaw—I would like to speak on behalf of the 1,000-odd members of theTransport Workers Union in this part of the country. There has been a considerableamount of discussion that has been taking place over the last few weeks in relation toproposed changes to the act. Generally speaking, they have great concerns in all areas ofthe act and what I would like to do, with your permission, is to summarise two or threemajor points, and go from there.

What they are saying is that in no way, shape or form do they want or are theyprepared to accept changes to their awards. Their view is clearly that they have foughtlong and hard on the job and with supporting the process through the Industrial Commis-sion to have conditions and wage rates put in place, and they are very clear on that. Sothat is an important point, that they do not want their awards changed at all. Theycertainly do not want them reduced, and they are very strong on that particular issue.

ECONOMICS


The Industrial Commission is part of that process, as you know. They see that asan independent arbitrator which is vital to the system. They also see that it is importantthat, as a way of minimising or reducing the potential for disputes, rather than take on-the-job action, they are able to take their matters off to the Industrial Commission, have themheard, have them arbitrated if need be, to deal with these matters. The legislation, in theirview, clearly means that they will have to go back into a scenario where, to get mattersdealt with when they get into a confrontation situation with their employer, these matterswill be dealt with on the grass.

Another point of great concern is these Australian workplace agreements. I havebrought two along today. You may be of the view that the legislation is not in yet, but Ican tell you it is in and active in this part of the country. Employers are clearly notwaiting for this legislation to be introduced. They have embarked on some of thesedocuments and I have brought two along just to give you an overview of what they are.This first one is an employment agreement and it is not entitled Australian workplaceagreement. It is an employment agreement with one of the local coach companies aroundtown that participates in charters, tour operations and so on.

It is not a long document—it only has six or so paragraphs—and I would just liketo read it to you. The document is between the company and the employee. It states:

IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1.The employee shall be employed as a Tour Bus Drive/Operator.

2.The employee’s duties shall be as follows:

a) To drive the employer’s Tour Bus where directed by the employer;—

I have no problems with that.

b) To drive the Tour Bus at all times in a safe manner;—

I certainly have no problems with that. It continues:

c) To cook meals for customers;d) To clean up after customers;e) To look after the customers luggage;f) To attend to simple maintenance of the Tour Bus such as air, oil, water, etc.

Generally speaking, we can accept that as part of the role that people have, but what itgoes on to say is:

3. The employee shall work during hours as directed by the Employer.

ECONOMICS


So the employee has no right to say whether they are going to work Monday to Friday,whether they are going to work in the mornings or in the evenings. The employer willclearly state as to when that employee will work. It does not say that the employee willwork four hours, one hour, eight hours, 12 or 18 hours; it says that the employee willwork as directed by the employer. It goes on to say:

4.The employee shall be paid casual rates.

So it does not say that there is a permanent job for this person. What good is an awardthat may have 20 conditions like annual leave, if a casual employee never gets to aposition where they can pick that condition up and take annual leave? What good is sickleave if a casual employee does not receive it? So this person, despite how many hoursthey work per year, how many hours and what days of the week they work, will remainon a casual basis in a permanent situation. It goes on to say that:

5. The employee shall be responsible for any damage caused to the Tour Bus if such damage iscaused by the negligent driving of the employee.

So as part of that, an employee on—in this case—an undisclosed amount of money, ifthey damage the vehicle that they are driving and the employer says, ‘That’s because ofyour negligence,’ then the employee has got to pay for it. These vehicles are very, veryexpensive. The replacement value of the particular one I am talking about is $65,000.Where is an employee going to come up with $65,000 to pay for a vehicle because theemployer says that he was negligent? It is not going to work. It goes on a little bit morein this particular document where it says:

6. The employer shall at its own discretion pay for the employee to have Japanese languagelessons.

That is clearly another skill that these people need to carry out their work. They may haveto obtain those skills. In this particular situation the employer, at its own discretion willpay for it. That is a document I have here. It has been given to me by one of theconcerned employees of this particular company. I thought that it might be interesting so Ibrought it along. This document is only about a month old.

The second one I would like to give you an overview on is a more detaileddocument. It actually has the employer’s name and structure on the top. It is a private andconfidential document, but I will give you a bit of an overview. It is very similar to theother one in some areas. This one actually states an amount of money. It says that thebase rate as of the above will be $25,000 per annum, but it does not state how often, howmany hours or what time of the day these people work. In fact these people work duringthe night and I know that they are currently not being paid shift penalties. They are notgetting any over and above payment for what they are doing. That is a great concern, notonly because of the hours they are working, but because they are not getting any extrapayments for what they are doing now. On the probationary period, it goes on to say:

ECONOMICS


Your employment is probationary for the first three months—

That is understandable.

Your salary will be reviewed on an annual basis—

That is fine. It does not say that the contract will be continued but it just says it will bereviewed. It does not say whether it is going up or down.

Superannuation is in accordance with the company superannuation fund—

And that is fine.

Leave benefits—

In this particular case they are receiving an entitlement of five weeks annual leave. Thereis no argument on that. Public holidays they receive.

Sick leave entitlement is as determined by the company.

That is their sick leave entitlement. What on earth are these people going to do when theyare ill and they need to take some time off because of that? It is totally up to thecompany’s discretion as to whether they wish to tip some money into the employee’s paypacket or not. To me, that is totally wrong.

Long service leave is governed by the applicable state legislation.

We are assuming that the long service leave will remain under the act. It goes on toconfidential information: basically, if they talk outside of work they have got troubles.They must undergo a medical or drug testing as required by the company during theiremployment. That is basically it in this particular document here.

We have got numerous problems with that one as well. It is better than the onebefore, but these people clearly have no defined hours of work. They must, basically,make themselves available whenever the employer wishes them to work. These people donot have any shift penalties; they do not receive any overtime structure; no disputesprocedure is involved with this as part of this particular document. We can see problems,and plenty of them, with Australian workplace agreements. As I say, employers are notwaiting for them, they are already coming in.

CHAIR —Mr Buttenshaw, can I ask that you table the documents?

Mr Buttenshaw—I am able to and prepared to table them providing the referenceto the companies’ names and any identifying of the companies is removed.

ECONOMICS


CHAIR —That is not a problem. We will move into questions now.

Senator CHILDS—Would it be true to say that even with an award system anarea like Cairns would have quite a development of casual labour—people on workingholidays and people coming through prepared to take rates of pay that would be below theaward?

Mr Hanna —Yes.

Mr Buttenshaw—Yes, that is correct.

Mr Hanna —Can I just answer that one? In the construction industry we find thataffects us drastically. Workers come through, backpackers and such forth and they take theminimum an hour and they work for cash in their hands and such forth leaving the localsin the area out of pocket. They are left with the dole because the passing through peopleare coming in for less money.

Senator CHILDS—So, even with an award structure, if you were to have AWAsit could be even more difficult for you to police wages and conditions?

Mr Buttenshaw—Most certainly, that is correct. It is difficult enough at this pointin time to get employers to part with money that people rightly deserve, let alone trying topolice it and, I suppose, trying to create the legal structure that people need to seek justiceon a workplace agreement.

Senator CHILDS—I presume Ms Nicholls was referring to the submission madeby the Queensland branch of the ACTU and the Australian Workers Union when shereferred to a rate of $3 per hour. I noted that that submission said that it is unclear howand when competencies will be determined and that the transition to full adult rates isunspecified. The suggestion is that all these arrangements will be at the employer’sdiscretion, and box 3 in that submission pointed out that, on a classic award rate for atradesperson of $441.20, when the first-year apprentices had the time deducted for theirterm at the technical college, then the new hourly rate would be $2.90. Was that what youwere referring to?

Ms Nicholls—It was. I have not actually seen that submission, but I had heardthose figures quoted and I am very concerned about them. I think it is terrible. It isdevaluing the work force and youth employment and on-the-job training. The ramificationsfor the Australian work force are terrible.

Senator CHAPMAN—Mr Buttenshaw, did I understand correctly that the secondagreement that you quoted from did not have a definite provision for leave?

Mr Buttenshaw—The second one did, in actual fact. It had a provision for annual

ECONOMICS


leave of five weeks per year, public holidays—I suppose you might see them as leave—and sick leave. However, it did not go into explaining the entitlements and how manydays’ payment, and so on.

Senator CHAPMAN—It did not have any provision for long service leave orparental leave or personal carer’s leave?

Mr Buttenshaw—It said that ‘long service leave is governed by applicable statelegislation’.

Senator CHAPMAN—So it provides that.

Mr Buttenshaw—Currently, yes; I am not able to confirm whether that is going toremain part of that legislation. But at this particular point in time, that is all it says on thisparticular document. It does not say anything about family leave or child-care leave.

Senator CHAPMAN—You described it as an Australian workplace agreement.You would be aware that this legislation has not been passed yet to give effect toAustralian workplace agreements; so, obviously, whatever that agreement that is, it hasbeen drafted under the existing state or federal legislation. I am not sure whether it is astate agreement or a federal agreement. In fact, it does not meet the specified minima ofan Australian workplace agreement that are spelt out in the legislation. An agreement ofthat nature could not be entered into under this bill.

Mr Buttenshaw—That is exactly right, but even in the event that that item isoutside of the 20 that are going to be prescribed under the award, it is going to be verydifficult—and I am getting an overview of some of the problems that people are going tohave—and there is no way on earth that, under the bill, we are going to be able to counterpeople having to physically pay for damage caused to vehicles because the employer saysthat they were negligent. How would somebody who is employed—

Senator CHAPMAN—Could I just interrupt? It would be a court that woulddetermine whether or not they were negligent, not the employer.

Mr Buttenshaw—Okay; so, if there is an employee on the job receiving the awardrate of around $400 to $410 per week, how on earth are those people going to be able tofund a case to take it to a court to seek justice? It does not happen, and it will not happen.

Senator CHAPMAN—They would go to the Small Claims Court, which does notrequire a great deal of funding.

Mr Buttenshaw—If I were a person in that position, and I were taking myemployer to the Small Claims Court, or to any court—

ECONOMICS


Senator CHAPMAN—No, no. The employer would have to take you to the court:he is the one that is alleging the negligence, not you.

Mr Buttenshaw—Okay. The fact is that you would actually be going off to seekjustice in other areas. Because you are working on a permanent casual basis, nobodywould be able to convince me that the employer would retain your employment while allthis was going on, when you were off into some higher jurisdiction to seek justice. Frommy experience, I would envisage that, as soon as you announced to your employer thatyou were taking the matter further to seek justice, you would be out the door.

Senator CHAPMAN—I think you would have a pretty good unfair dismissals casein that situation.

Mr Buttenshaw—We are not clear as to what the unfair dismissal legislationentails.

Senator CHAPMAN—I do not think you would have much difficulty in thosecircumstances.

Mr Buttenshaw—That is exactly right, but under the current system—and I do notknow whether it is going to improve—it takes some time to get these matters into thecommission for unfair dismissal through the process, and that is no good to you when youare sitting home without an income while all of this is going on. So this is clearly whyaward protection needs to be there and needs to be maintained with the support of theunions to police these matters. The unions, of course, must have the funding to carry thesematters through. If it goes to civil litigation or whatever, that is what the union is therefor.

Senator CHAPMAN—If these protections were provided under the award youwould have to go through the same procedures to get that protection applied as under thelegislation.

Mr Buttenshaw—That is exactly right.

Senator CHAPMAN—So you are not in a worse situation under this legislation.

Mr Buttenshaw—The fact that the employer is aware that the employee has otherpeople acting on their behalf in an industrial matter is a deterrent to stop that employerfrom, I suppose, being too aggressive.

Senator CHAPMAN—And there is nothing in this legislation to preclude thateither.

Mr Buttenshaw—No, that is exactly right but the problem is with the breakdown

ECONOMICS


of the award even further, particularly with the exploitation of casuals, as it puts people ina very difficult bargaining position and that is what I am saying.

Senator MURRAY—Ms Nicholls, I draw your attention to page 1 of yoursubmission, and the last paragraph in 1(a). With respect to changes to the award system,you say:

This also has the potential to cause huge discrepancies in the types and quality of health careservices provided to the community, and create havoc with the multi-disciplinary health care teamsas we know them now.

My view is that the public sector always has to provide an equitable base of services tothe public because that is what they are paid for, but why should private sector nursingorganisations not vary in standards and costs because people who buy those services willeither choose to patronise them or not. Why is it any different from a hotel or a restaurantor a motor car or anything you buy in the private sector?

Ms Nicholls—I would have an ethical problem with that. There should be astandard of nursing care and health provisions. You should not have to pay to get decentcare.

Senator MURRAY—That is public sector and I accept that argument, but whatabout in the private sector nursing sector?

Ms Nicholls—I would not think that even in the private sector you should pay fora certain standard of care. Whether you receive a decent standard of health care should notbe conversant on whether you have plenty of money or you have not or whether you arepaying intermediate health benefits. The ramifications of that, particularly in the aged careindustry, just leave me astounded. Because people pay for their nursing care in a nursinghome, people in a nursing home in one area would get below standard care maybe becauseit might be a poor area or people in another area might be—

Senator MURRAY—But if minimum standards were set, why is it no different tobuying a motor car? All motor cars have to have minimum standards of safety andconstruction but the cost can vary between $13,000 and hundreds of thousands. Whyshould the private sector nursing sector not be the same, given my acceptance of minimumstandards?

Ms Nicholls—If people wish to pay twice the amount that some other person ispaying for their hospital stay, I presume that they are paying for things like a privateroom, luxurious appointments in the room, a higher standard of food provision maybe—Ido not know—but I would not assume that they were paying for a better standard ofhealth care.

ECONOMICS


Senator MURRAY—That is the case in many countries of the world, of course—that health care does vary according to the affordability. All right; we will leave that there.Mr Buttenshaw, the contracts you have outlined, and you have clearly indicated they areunder the existing industrial relations legislation—

Mr Buttenshaw—That is correct.

Senator MURRAY—The category you referred to struck me as quite a highlyskilled category. If you are a bus tour operator in the way you described it, you need tohave good customer relations, which is not always easy to get, and I think you indicatedthat you need a second language skill and probably experience in the field et cetera. Itwould strike me as unwise for an employer who wants to actually increase profitabilityand market share to deliberately erode that service in the area, because people will not usethe service. I was very interested that they had actually asked for casual rates. Is theemployer’s drive for casual rates under the existing legislation because of the unfairdismissal laws? If those unfair dismissal laws were amended, are employers less likely tofocus on casual rates than at present?

Mr Buttenshaw—The problem with the unfair dismissal laws in place or under theproposed system is that it takes time. As I indicated earlier, these people basically livefrom week to week with incomes and so on; they cannot afford to lose a week’s wages.So, whatever system is in place, it needs to be quick and precise. That is probably aboutthe best way that I can answer that.

Senator MURRAY—For example, the employer in that case wants casualemployees because of the difficulty of dismissing employees who are poor under theexisting legislation.

Mr Buttenshaw—No. In fact the majority of employees in the industry that I amtalking about are casuals. The reason is that the employer, because of the nature of theindustry, is not clear in all cases as to how much work he has tomorrow. So what he isseeking is flexibility. He does not want to have a roster put in place with fixed hours onit. He basically wants people at the drop of a hat so that he is able to contact them andsay, ‘I’ve got a job.’

Senator MURRAY—Just clarify it for me: you mean casual and not regular part-time?

Mr Buttenshaw—No; there is not a lot of, I suppose, part-time people in thisparticular area; it is purely made up more of casuals rather than permanents.

Senator MURRAY—How many hours would a casual do typically in a week inthis industry?

ECONOMICS


Mr Buttenshaw—I would say that they would do generally in the vicinity of 45 or50 hours-plus.

Senator MURRAY—So you really cannot classify them as casual, can you; it isflexible labour.

Mr Buttenshaw—Yes, I would say that it is more flexible labour, and I supposethat is what the employer is seeking. It may be that a part of that breakup is to, I suppose,try to remove themselves as much as possible from unfair dismissal, but I do not thinkthey are doing it specifically for that reason. It is more to do with providing someflexibility.

But the problem with this is that it is not done around the bargaining table; it isdone when you apply for a job. When you are sitting across the table from an employerand the employer says to you, ‘I’m prepared to employ you,’ there is no bargaining thatgoes on at that particular point in time, because you want the job. So the employer wouldbasically say—and in fact they did in this case; they would not say it in these words—‘We’re prepared to employ you. The structure will be this agreement. Do you want thejob? Yes or no? Sign this.’

Senator MURRAY—But, for example, if the bill were to prevent anyone doing 50hours a week being termed ‘casual’—I cannot recall whether it does or does not—thatwould then make you content?

Mr Buttenshaw—No. Let me tell you about another scenario that is in place inCairns as we speak and which we are trying to deal with. We have a company workingpeople 50 and 60 hours a week. What happens is that I suppose the company avoidspaying overtime. It pays the same person under company A for 40 hours of the week;rather than paying them overtime, they employ them under another company name. Sothese people are effectively working 60 hours a week and receiving 60 hours pay atordinary time. So I suppose it is scenarios like that where people are able to be exploitedwhich create huge areas of concern.

ACTING CHAIR (Senator Ferguson)—Thank you very much. I apologise for thecomings and goings, but we have had a bit of plane problems. Thank you very much foryour presentation to us today.

ECONOMICS


[12.09 p.m.]

BYRNE, Ms Marlene, 24 Montrose Avenue, Edge Hill, Queensland 4870

ACTING CHAIR —We are now in an open forum session. I think you are awarethat you are allowed to speak for five minutes. There will be no questions from any of us.It is basically so that your statements will be recorded inHansardas part of the publicinquiry into this workplace reform bill.

Ms Byrne—In my written submission I have outlined my grave concerns fornurses in the workplace in relation to the proposed workplace legislation. Basically thisrelates to potential exploitation, discrimination and inequality. I have been a nurse forapproximately 26 years now. I have worked both overseas and here in Queensland andhave held a number of positions through clinical and through management. I am alsoinvolved in professional nursing organisations and have involvement with the QueenslandNurses Union. I am very involved in the various nurses associations here in Far NorthQueensland.

Certainly, as I said in my submission, a union’s right of entry into the workplace tosee what is going on is of concern, particularly to the nursing work force here in FarNorth Queensland. I did not mention it in my submission, but some examples of that aresome of the very difficult situations where nurses in remote areas work in Far NorthQueensland and certainly the nurses union has been instrumental in improving thoseconditions. I believe that, if they did not have the right of entry into the workplace, that itwould have been difficult to ameliorate some of those conditions. Certainly they relate tothings like very substandard accommodation. For example, at Lockhart River the toiletsdid not work in their accommodation and mould was growing all over the walls—thosesorts of issues. That has an impact on workplace health and safety and the direct welfareof individual nurses.

One of the other areas which I outlined in my submission was my experience as anurse in Ottawa, Canada. An enterprise agreement system was very much the case over 20years ago when I worked there as a very young registered nurse. I was involved in helpingto negotiate a three-year contract with the registered nurses in my workplace. Certainly,the organisation I worked in achieved a very good outcome, but it was a significantlyricher hospital which catered to a middle and upper class clientele. At the same time mycolleagues on the other side of town were negotiating their contracts and they ended upwith $150 less a month. They catered to disadvantaged poor French clientele. Theresources of that hospital were not equivalent to the one in which I worked.

The inequalities experienced by those nurses in the workplace in relation to theirpoorer achievement in terms of salary and wages and conditions, and also in terms of theirworkloads, were quite unequal.

ECONOMICS


I am certainly very aware, too, from some of the research that is going on inAustralia. I would like to quickly refer to the document which became available inFebruary 1996, ‘Understanding individual contracts of employment’. It seems from theoutcomes from that analysis of 25 workplace agreements that there are certainly problems.

ACTING CHAIR —Ms Byrne, I have to ask you to conclude now, because yourfive minutes have expired, so that everybody has a chance. Thank you very much for yourpresentation. I now invite Ms Joan Trewern to speak.

ECONOMICS


TREWERN, Mrs Joan, 18 Valmadre Street, Lake Placid, Queensland 4878

Ms Trewern—Thank you very much. I think I should state something of mycredentials too. We started off the women’s shelter and the women’s centre in Cairnswhich are now independent bodies and hive off other bodies of their own. We also ranlots of meetings for women during the national agenda for women under Prime MinisterFraser and had a lot of significant visiting speakers, including three acceptances from theOffice of the Status of Women. I say ‘acceptances’ because one of them was not able tocome at the last minute because her son’s lungs collapsed. This is pertinent to ourparticular submission on women’s work and family responsibility. Also, we were the firstpeople to put a submission into TAFE for a tourism and hospitality course here on behalfof women and girls, and a committee was formed at the TAFE of businessmen. So thoseare some of the things we have done.

Our submission here has been okayed by the main author of the WEL nationalsubmission. She rang me the other day and gave me her blessing. WEL Cairns fullysupports the national WEL submission and wishes to focus on the subject of ‘balancingwork and family responsibility’. That is a quote from the national submission. It is easy tothink of conflict between the two elements—work and family responsibility—but in factthey are usually causally related because most women work, not in spite of familyresponsibilities but because of them. So Womens Electoral Lobby Cairns stronglypromotes recognition of the principle of women’s commitment to their children.

Statistics such as those in theAustralian Women’s Yearbookshow that theoverwhelming majority of the huge numbers of parents raising children alone, even ineconomically difficult situations, are women. This is incontrovertible. But it is not what aSupreme Court judge once said, that ‘Women have a biological problem that men don’thave to face’. The biology of the reproductory relationship is not a problem, it is a mostpositive value—the basic imperative governing women’s lives.

Woman is unique. She is the only being in the known universe that not only bringsforth offspring but is also concerned for the long-term welfare of the offspring she bringsforth. The commitment of women to their children affects all women in the practicalworld because the pattern in which women work in society is created by the majority ofwomen and the majority of women have children. Yet women’s commitment to theirchildren is not acknowledged as the basic principle that it is. This is why policiesregarding women are ad hoc, piecemeal, often peripheral, not actually incorporated, andthat is the case with the workplace relations bill belief. The national WEL submissioncontrasts the ability of the exceptionally skilled women who can bargain individually forhours which suit their family needs with the vulnerability of others who have less of thisbargaining capacity.

In 1994 WEL Cairns ran a symposium for women in Cairns to tell of how theymanage work and family. I have newsletters with extracts of what they said and the

ECONOMICS


booklet with the whole thing to table. The visiting speaker was unable to come becauseher father was dying and she had a huge crisis in her job, which was running the NationalChildcare Accreditation Council. One of the main organisers was unable to come becauseshe had a whole list of things happen to her. She finished up not being able to come onthe day after illnesses, having to go down to Brisbane with a little girl—all sorts of crisisin her family—and then her family had a celebration of her parents’ anniversary. As shesaid, ‘You can’t say no to your mother because you have to go to a women’s meeting.’

Many of the women in that symposium were high achievers, but they told storiesof battling against the odds. Why are people who are high achievers at the same time littleAussie battlers? It is because they are women and they have these other obligations andresponsibilities.

ECONOMICS


FORSYTH, Ms Diane, 114 Woodward Street, Edge Hill, Queensland 4870

Ms Forsyth—I work in the social welfare field. We have actually just got anaward. If this bill comes in, 18 months down the track we will lose it. It has just come inwith a salary award that has given us a rate of pay which recognises the skills needed inthat area for the first time.

I am also working with young people and with women’s organisations here inCairns. I am a member of the Australian Services Union as well, and I am particularlyconcerned with the youth wage and the possibility that young people will be working at anadult level for much lower wages while still having adult costs of living. Accommodationfor young people is the same as for adults. Medicare for young people is the same as it isfor adults. Having a youth wage will certainly disadvantage many young people and putthem back in that disadvantaged category.

I am also concerned that the changes to the unfair dismissal laws will particularlydisadvantage youth and women returning to the workplace. People would need to get alawyer and the cost of that would, I imagine, stop many people from taking action inunfair dismissal cases and those cases will never see the light of day.

Also, negotiating Australian workplace agreements will disadvantage many people,particularly those who are less skilled in the bargaining process. I can imagine how ayoung person going into a workplace for the first time, looking for a job, would be forcedto accept low wages. If they refuse and decide that they do not want that position becausethe wages are too low, will that mean that they will not be able to get access to the dole?

There are lots of checks and balances in the current system that I think really needto stay there. A minimum award is not going to protect any of the workers.

ECONOMICS


BRADSHAW, Mr Alan, 4 Card Avenue, Manunda, Cairns, Queensland 4870

Mr Bradshaw—I work for Caterair at the airport. We load aircraft with food. Thecompany has three sites in Australia—one here and ones in Sydney and Brisbane. Wehave some 2,000 employees with more than 24 nationalities amongst all of those people.

The people are concerned about the system we have in place. Most of these peoplefrom overseas try to understand that the best they can. They are very concerned about thenew system of individual contracts, where people can bargain better than other people forwages. Someone could be on a higher wage than somebody else. Some of the people fromcountries where their wages are at a lower standard would accept the lower standard ofwage, whereas at the moment everyone is fairly equal with all the wages and conditions.

Some of the contracts that people have seen that are being presented and that weknow do exist in Cairns are not quite clear about conditions. What we have seen of thenew contracts or the Australian workplace agreement is that, where there are only 20conditions in the contract, they could lose things like meal breaks, maternity leave—although not so much long service leave—and holiday leave loading. People out at theairport are required to get up in the early hours of the morning, start work at three o’clockand continue on through until 11 o’clock at night. That is not to say that one person isdoing that length of shift, but those are the hours that the airport operates. This means thatwe can cover those hours with our shifts depending on what roster you are on. Overtimerates would go with these agreements where you are required to work for a certain amountfor a year. If your flights come in late, then you are required to stay back for those flightssometimes, but you would not be overtime rates.

They are very concerned about the unequalness in the contracts and there is noredress for the person to query what somebody else is getting. They feel that there wouldbe a lot of favouritism from the managers or so-called employers shown to certain peopleover other people. With that, there is also no guarantee of further employment at the endof a contract. At the end of a term of a contract there could be a drop in wages andconditions that you have at the time. They would very much like to stay with the presentsystem and the Industrial Relations Commission as it is equal to both sides at the moment.

With the Industrial Relations Commission the way it is at the moment both sideshave equal say on what takes place in the workplace. We have negotiated four successfulenterprise bargaining agreements out there and, if minimum rates were to come into effectwe could lose all our conditions we have worked hard for over the years. Other than that Ido not have much more to say.

ECONOMICS


LOGAN, Mr Brad, 73 Hoey Road, MSI 1039, Kuranda, Queensland 4872

Mr Logan —I am employed as a wagon builder with the Cairns railways. I do notclaim to clearly understand all the proposed changes to the legislation and I am not anexpert in industrial relations. However, there are a couple of issues that I would like tocover. Firstly, there is a reduction of the right of the union official to enter the workplaceand secondly, the proposal to allow individual contracts to override award agreements.

I am a member of the PTU, which is the Public Transport Union. I have anorganiser in Townsville who covers a vast area from Mackay north and as far as MountIsa. I personally would not have a problem providing the union organiser with a letterrequesting him to come into the workplace. However, coming from a workplace that isvery heavily unionised, that is not surprising. I am concerned about the opportunity for theorganiser to address issues at short notice. Furthermore, there are some locations wheresome individuals would be conscious about letting it be known that they invited theorganiser into the workplace.

I would also suggest that in a minority workplace, not necessarily within Queens-land Rail, there would be intimidation of the individual to encourage the organiser to visitthe workplace. The geography of North Queensland is something that should be taken intoconsideration when proposing to restrict union entry. It is not quite like a union personwanting to enter the workplace in Sydney or Melbourne. An organiser has to coverworkplaces hundreds of miles from the union office. This means he has to have trips tovarious parts of the state where he may pass 30, 40 or 50 working locations on the way.This may only occur over a six- to 12-month period.

It would be wrong for the organiser to not have the opportunity to talk to theworkers in the workplace in such circumstances. It is not possible for an organiser toarrive at Kuranda at short notice, for example, because someone has a problem up there. Ibelieve that the people who have drafted this legislation have not considered the needs ofcountry Queensland workers when it comes to the union organiser entering the workplace.

Another area I am concerned about is that of the union being contacted with ahealth and safety matter and management not being prepared to do something immediate-ly. Would it prevent my organiser from coming to the workplace and addressing the issueat short notice?

I would also like to talk about the proposal to introduce individual contracts. Iunderstand that they would be called Australian workplace agreements, or AWAs. Myworkplace has gone through significant changes over the last few years, just as hasoccurred in many parts of the railway industry. That change has often been painful, but atthe end of the day it has been introduced through agreement.

The equality issue, as far as who does what and what gets paid for, exists in our

ECONOMICS


workplace. We currently earn well above the award rate of pay because of the enterpriseagreements in this industry and I would be very concerned if employees within theworkplace, or new employees coming into the workplace, end up on different rates, eitherhigher or lower, from the ones the rest of the workers are receiving for carrying out thesame work. It is far from fair that some people should now expect to work for less thanthat. Finally, I would like to thank you for being prepared to come to visit this area andhear our matters put forward.

ECONOMICS


SMITH, Mr Mark, 9 Ryrie Street, El-Arish, Queensland 4855

Mr Smith —I am a second-year diesel apprentice. I have not long started, but I amhere on behalf of the apprentices of the Johnstone Shire. There are concerns that appren-tices will have their pay deducted while they attend block training, which I do not reckonis very fair at all. It is hard enough as it is for us to get through our weekly living withliving costs being so high and our pay rate being so low.

It is not only that. When you go away for college, most of the time you are sent toa major city, which may be Cairns, Brisbane, Townsville or somewhere like that. You areexpected to pay for rent or board while you are going to college plus your extra food.That may be good enough for the apprentices that live at home with their parents, butthere are also the ones that have a house to pay off, so they are paying rent on two placeswhile they are at college. There are apprentices who are 23 or 30 and have dependentchildren and wives that they have to keep the money up to while they are at college. Ifour pay is dropped while we are at college, we just cannot survive. We are goingbackwards as it is. Every bit of money that I earn and save up I have to keep for mycollege to pay my college fees. I am just annoyed about it.

Senator MURRAY—How long is your apprenticeship?

Mr Smith —It goes for four years. I have only been at it for two and a quarteryears, or something like that.

ACTING CHAIR —Thank you very much for your presentations before thecommittee. As I said, although some committee members had to leave, it is all recorded inHansardand I know that they will look through this, together with all the other submis-sions we heard this morning. Thank you for making yourselves available to the inquiry.

Committee adjourned at 12.34 p.m.

ECONOMICS

economics references committee€¦ · welcome you to the hearing. i now invite you to give the...

Documents