HANSARD EXTRACT
| Employment Committee
Report |
| 22 June 2005 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (11.37 a.m.)—I
rise today to comment on the report of the Standing Committee on
Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation entitled
Working for
Australia’s future: increasing participation in the workforce. I take this opportunity to comment on the
recommendations which prompted a dissenting report by Labor members
of the committee—a dissenting report that it would seem from the
Prime Minister’s recent statement on industrial relations he clearly
chose to ignore.
Before turning in particular to the three
recommendations of the dissenting members, I would like to record my
support for the report’s 20 unanimous recommendations. I believe
that it is very important that the recommendations that were made by
the committee—including reviewing the tax-free threshold; reviewing
effective marginal tax rates; improving transition to work programs;
expanding child care and after-school and holiday care; and
improving access to employment programs—should be closely examined
by the government if it is truly intent on assisting an increase in
work force participation.
I also support the recommendations of the
dissenting report. It seems to me that the Labor members of the
committee have considered the evidence more closely and clearly have
a better understanding of the concerns of the average Australian. It
seems that the dissenting members of the committee are more aware of
the concerns that Australians have in relation to casualisation of
the work force. It is true that more employees are facing longer
periods of part-time and casual employment. Gone are the days when
getting a job meant simply accepting regular, full-time working
hours. Some have dismissed this as a change in the composition and
structure of work in
Australia. Nevertheless, it is occurring, and that fact is certainly
supported by statistical evidence. In particular, it is interesting
that in the statistics presented in the report the proportion of
males employed on a casual basis has doubled since 1988.
Additionally, over that same period, from 1988, the statistics show
that total employment involving casual employment has increased by
50 per cent.
The labour force statistics for
April, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, record that
more than 2.8 million people were employed on a part-time basis.
Granted, a number of them will be happy to be employed on a
part-time basis, as it will enable them to pursue other activities
while earning an income, such as raising a family, caring for aged
parents or, indeed, studying. However, many people do want to work
more. In 2004, the ABS released a report on the underemployed
workers of Australia, which was particularly revealing of the views
of part-time employees about their employment status. The ABS
conducted a survey throughout September 2003 to provide empirical
evidence for that report.
At that time the survey showed that 2.7 million
people were employed on a part-time basis. Of this 2.7 million
people, 23 per cent wanted to work more hours; that is, more than
600,000 people employed on a part-time basis wanted to work more.
Examining the data further showed that, of those 600,000 workers, 58
per cent wanted full-time employment and 77 per cent, during the
four-week period of the survey, had actively looked for work that
would provide more hours. It is pretty clear from the results of
that survey that the majority of these part-time workers wanted to
work more and they were ready to start working more. The ABS report
goes on to indicate that 90 per cent of those who wanted full-time
employment were available to start immediately.
This situation has not changed. In the lead-up
to my own by-election campaign, a constituent in Werriwa approached
me and described his experience of entering the work force. The
fellow was on a Job Network program and had found some part-time
work. As he said, it was great; this was what he wanted to do. This
work was probably not the best in the world, but he wanted to
participate in the work force. He was very pleased to have gained
the job. He sought to inquire of his conditions from his employer.
He turned up there and was told that, from the next day on, he would
be required to bring his own vehicle because he would be required to
travel for work purposes. So he was required to drive his own
vehicle not only to and from work but also in the course of his
employment.
After his first week at work, he had only
worked for three days. He said that he was pretty shocked when he
got his first weekly pay. After taking into account that he was
using his own vehicle not only to travel to and from work but also
to run errands during the day for his employer’s business, he found
that he was worse off than he was on his former program. So being
keen to continue working, he went in the next week—granted, one day
was wet—to be told that he would be required only one day that week.
The company that he was working for and that he named for me would
be well known to everybody; it would certainly be found on the ASX.
That is the way in which employment practices are starting to
perpetuate—and I am sure that Werriwa is no exception with
circumstances like these—and this is one example that was brought to
my attention. This bloke is just an average fellow who is happy to
pay his taxes. He wanted to participate in the full-time labour
market and do his bit in looking after his family. He certainly saw
the way in which the system is stacked against many individuals.
Given the fact that at the time of the last
census one in four workers in Werriwa was employed on a part-time
basis, this gentleman’s case that he related to me could hardly be
considered as isolated. But it gets worse than that. Not only do
part-time and casual workers face greater uncertainty of income;
because of their own financial instability they also find it
difficult to access a number of other services that many of us would
take for granted. Part-time and casual employees have greater
difficultly accessing financial services. Due to the uncertainty
surrounding their future incomes, part-time and casual employees
often report that financial institutions are more reluctant to give
them access to loans and lines of credit than they would be had they
been in full-time employment. Most of us would know that to be a
fact. The evidence presented to the committee suggested that casual
and part-time employees may also face reduced access to training and
skills development opportunities, which are obviously so crucial for
people making that transition into full-time permanent employment or
trying to pursue a career.
I am also quite sure that, if we had a closer
look at those who have Centrelink debts, we would probably find that
a significant number of those debtors are either part-time or casual
employees, as they would find it even more difficult than the rest
of us to accurately estimate their annual income. Hence, at the end
of the year part-time and casual employees receive yet another
setback when they are notified that they have managed to accumulate
a Centrelink debt. I guess these are the rewards for being employed
under the so-called flexible working arrangements.
I would also like to take the opportunity to
support the recommendations in the dissenting report concerning
employment conditions. Once again, when making recommendations
pursuing further award simplification and encouraging greater
workplace customisation and flexibility, government members of the
committee seemed to substitute ideology for evidence. As someone
with a reasonably extensive involvement in the Australian industrial
relations system, having worked in it from all perspectives, I find
it difficult to believe that further simplifying awards will result
in greater participation in the work force. I think such an argument
does not hold much weight, particularly when one considers the claim
that 77,000 more jobs will be created if small businesses are
exempted from unfair dismissal laws—a claim that, when placed under
some scrutiny before the Senate committee, was found to be seriously
lacking.
My views are reinforced by the findings of the
dissenting report. The dissenting committee members found that the
committee’s recommendations for reductions in allowable matters and
greater workplace customisation were contrary to the evidence
received. The dissenting members reported:
On no occasion had evidence supported the assertion that reducing
allowable matters in federal awards would have any bearing upon
improving participation in the paid workforce.
Work force participation will not be improved through award changes
or even the erosion of hard won conditions in awards. It will not be
improved by exempting small business from unfair dismissal laws or
reducing the right of entry into workplaces. And it will not be
improved by effectively sidelining the Australian Industrial
Relations Commission, which, after all, has acted as the independent
umpire looking to protect the interests of both employers and
employees engaged under the system.
Increasing participation rates requires
increasing opportunities for unemployed people to enter the work
force. These opportunities will only emerge when the hurdles that
people face when they are seeking a job are effectively addressed.
To address those issues really does require us to focus on matters
such as the effective high marginal tax rates; child-care places, so
that they are more abundant to facilitate people being able to
translate into the workplace; and more affordable training places,
when the opportunities are there, for people to become job ready to
re-enter the work force.
I have spent many years working closely with
both employers and employees in business improvement programs and
also representing workers as a union official. Bearing in mind this
experience, I cannot recall one occasion when I thought that the
employment prospects of Australians would be enhanced by reducing
award conditions or by reducing the number of allowable matters. I
am yet to be convinced that Australians who for whatever reason are
not participating in the labour market at the moment believe this
will encourage them to re-enter the labour market.
The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and
Education References Committee recently explored the stunning
statistic this government used to justify excluding small business
from unfair dismissal laws—that is, that small business will create
77,000 new jobs if exempted from unfair dismissal laws. The
assertion was found to be unreliable and based on opinion and
perception rather than on any accurate data. In much the same way,
once the claim that reducing the number of allowable matters and
increasing the flexibility in workplace arrangements is subject to
some harsher scrutiny, I suspect that it will be found to be lacking
as well. With regard to the recommendations on disability support
pensions, I support the expansion and modification of the Job
Network disability support pension pilot. (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
