Mr BONSON - 2005-08-17
There has been a great deal of confusion amongst various federal ministers concerning the effects of the federal government’s radical industrial relations agenda. Many workers in the Northern Territory have a five or six week leave allowance included in their awards. Can the minister advise of the possible effects on Northern Territory workers’ annual leave entitlements arising from the federal government’s statements?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Millner for his question. It is true that there is some confusion in relation to this industrial relations agenda of the federal government. There is no doubt that it is a push to cut the wages and conditions of working people. Currently, under Australian Workplace Agreements there is what is known as a no disadvantage test and the gold standard is actually the award. If someone enters into an AWA, the comparison with the award is if they are disadvantaged in the AWA that they enter into.
Most awards have at least 20 conditions, but the federal government’s proposal under their industrial relations agenda is that they will have a new no disadvantage test which will be against five core conditions only. These five core conditions are: a minimum rate of pay of $12.75 per hour, eight days sick leave, four weeks annual leave, unpaid parental leave and weekly working hours.
As the member for Millner stated in his question, many workers in the Northern Territory currently enjoy five or six weeks annual leave as an award entitlement. However, in recent cases in the Northern Territory, we have seen where new starters under AWAs have had their annual leave reduced from six weeks to four weeks under takeable leave. Whilst it is true that, under the current system the no disadvantage test must be applied, and workers must be at least better off in terms of that, there is a small incentive of about 2% of their annual earnings to trade this condition under an AWA.
Changes to the no disadvantage test means that, in future, employers will not have to offer any incentives. In other words, with time, there is going to be an erosion of conditions under AWAs. Even the minimum conditions that I outlined before can be traded away under a ‘take it or leave it’ AWA, because the no disadvantage test is about to be changed.
This has caused great concern amongst many community groups including churches, and has caused great discomfort, I believe, to the federal government and to the federal minister. It is very telling that the federal government and, particularly our Prime Minister, John Howard, refuses to give a categorical assurance that no worker will be worse off under this radical new industrial relations agenda he is bringing in. I showed this earlier today, this is very important. This is a statement …
Ms Carney: Oh, there is the clock again!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: If the opposition can just give me a chance here. It is a quote from John Howard from 1996, where he said:
That was John Howard in 1996. A couple of weeks ago, all the state and territory workplace relations ministers asked Kevin Andrews, who is the federal minister, to give an assurance and sign on this dotted line saying: ‘I give my written guarantee to all states and territories that no worker will be worse off under the Commonwealth changes to industrial relations’. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Workplace Relations minister have signed off on that guarantee, so I believe workers need to be very concerned.
When the federal government has been asked ‘Why are you bringing in this radical agenda?’, none of them have been really able to justify it. The Australian industrial relations system has served Australia well for over 100 years. It has given workers modest increases in pay and salary, and it has also given a lot of certainty to employers in the system as a whole. This is an attack on that very system, an attack on workers’ pay and conditions, and it is all about a fair go. This government will fight for a fair go for Australian and Northern Territory workers.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Millner for his question. It is true that there is some confusion in relation to this industrial relations agenda of the federal government. There is no doubt that it is a push to cut the wages and conditions of working people. Currently, under Australian Workplace Agreements there is what is known as a no disadvantage test and the gold standard is actually the award. If someone enters into an AWA, the comparison with the award is if they are disadvantaged in the AWA that they enter into.
Most awards have at least 20 conditions, but the federal government’s proposal under their industrial relations agenda is that they will have a new no disadvantage test which will be against five core conditions only. These five core conditions are: a minimum rate of pay of $12.75 per hour, eight days sick leave, four weeks annual leave, unpaid parental leave and weekly working hours.
As the member for Millner stated in his question, many workers in the Northern Territory currently enjoy five or six weeks annual leave as an award entitlement. However, in recent cases in the Northern Territory, we have seen where new starters under AWAs have had their annual leave reduced from six weeks to four weeks under takeable leave. Whilst it is true that, under the current system the no disadvantage test must be applied, and workers must be at least better off in terms of that, there is a small incentive of about 2% of their annual earnings to trade this condition under an AWA.
Changes to the no disadvantage test means that, in future, employers will not have to offer any incentives. In other words, with time, there is going to be an erosion of conditions under AWAs. Even the minimum conditions that I outlined before can be traded away under a ‘take it or leave it’ AWA, because the no disadvantage test is about to be changed.
This has caused great concern amongst many community groups including churches, and has caused great discomfort, I believe, to the federal government and to the federal minister. It is very telling that the federal government and, particularly our Prime Minister, John Howard, refuses to give a categorical assurance that no worker will be worse off under this radical new industrial relations agenda he is bringing in. I showed this earlier today, this is very important. This is a statement …
Ms Carney: Oh, there is the clock again!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: If the opposition can just give me a chance here. It is a quote from John Howard from 1996, where he said:
- Under no circumstances will a Howard government create a wages system that will cause the take home pay of Australians to be cut. Under a Howard government you cannot be worse off, but you can be better off. I give this rock solid guarantee our policy will not cause a cut in the take home pay of Australian workers.
That was John Howard in 1996. A couple of weeks ago, all the state and territory workplace relations ministers asked Kevin Andrews, who is the federal minister, to give an assurance and sign on this dotted line saying: ‘I give my written guarantee to all states and territories that no worker will be worse off under the Commonwealth changes to industrial relations’. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Workplace Relations minister have signed off on that guarantee, so I believe workers need to be very concerned.
When the federal government has been asked ‘Why are you bringing in this radical agenda?’, none of them have been really able to justify it. The Australian industrial relations system has served Australia well for over 100 years. It has given workers modest increases in pay and salary, and it has also given a lot of certainty to employers in the system as a whole. This is an attack on that very system, an attack on workers’ pay and conditions, and it is all about a fair go. This government will fight for a fair go for Australian and Northern Territory workers.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016