Workers Online
Workers Online
Workers Online
  Issue No 46 Official Organ of LaborNet 17 March 2000  

 --

 --

 --

The Soapbox

Janice Crosio on Worker Entitlements


She's been fighting to protect workers entitlements since 1996; and she was at it again in Parliament this week, attempting to get her private members bill debated.

 
 

Wage earner protection funds have operated in Western Europe since the late 1960s as a means of protecting workers from company insolvency. The funds operate in countries that are not traditionally welfare oriented economies, and yet there have been no moves whatsoever to have Australia put in place such a scheme.

My bill will protect workers' entitlements. When I first introduced a similar bill to this in 1998, I had hoped that it would have been a catalyst for reform and would get this government motivated. To say that I am disappointed is certainly not exaggerating. I am extremely disappointed that no action from this government has been forthcoming over those years. The bill that I now reintroduce is about seeking justice for Australian workers. It is a bill about restoring equity to an important element of Australian industrial relations law. I said those same words when I introduced a similar bill in 1999. Again, it fell on deaf ears.

In the present bill before the House, three amendment have been made. These changes have been made to cover the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business continually saying, `We can't work on that bill. It doesn't even cover redundancies.' Well, I am saying to you, Minister, and to the government how easy and simple it is to move amendments to the structured bill that has been in place in this parliament since 1998. To enlighten the minister that you can have it rectified, in presenting this workers' entitlements bill of 2000 I have made those amendments to fully cover redundancy. It was not spelled out enough before and now it does. It also has a clause to cover small business. Employers having under 20 people in their employ will be exempt under the bill. It has also been amended to overcome an instance like we had with the recent Oakdale miners. I say to the minister and to Prime Minister: if you had wanted to get your act together you could have done this in 1998. You could have had a bill in here to protect the workers and we would not have seen the debacle that has occurred over the years since. I believe that this bill has overcome some of the remarks of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business about not caring for the ordinary worker and not covering them for redundancy, and not really being suitable for the government to act on. I present the bill and say again: you can act on it.

I first spoke on this need to protect workers' entitlements in 1996. When nothing happened, I commenced work and researched to have drafted a bill that could have and should have provided a basis on which to put into place in this House legislation to protect and guarantee workers' wages and entitlements in the event of their employer's insolvency. I had a certain amount of optimism in 1998. I thought that by then the government of the day would have at least listened and acted and something would have eventually been done. I was naive. I continue to be so, but at the same time I continue to be optimistic because at least I know that we in Labor, in the opposition, support what I am talking about. I am very grateful that the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, is here during this debate and that he will second the bill that I have before me. When I introduced this bill in 1998 I believe that everyone believed that by January 2000--as he told us on more than one occasion--the minister would finally have in place a protection scheme for workers. Well, we do not have that in place.

The Prime Minister and the government can no longer just give sympathy to workers who have been made redundant. We saw the 160 workers at the Woodlawn zinc and copper mine in Goulburn and their $6 million entitlement. The Prime Minister and the minister came out and said, `Oh, how sympathetic we are, and we are going to do something about it.' We saw the CSA mine in Cobar where 270 miners lost their entitlements and only through their continued fight were able to gain something back. We then saw 250 meatworkers in Grafton lose $3 million. Again, we had the minister getting out there and saying, `We are going to do something about it.' We saw 150 nurses in Yeppoon, Rockhampton lose $1.4 million. Again, we were going to see `action'. We saw Oakdale and the demonstrations that happened there. It was only because of a particular fund structure that was in place that those miners were able to see even one penny of what was owed to them. Many of us remember last year when the Braybrook textile workers came up here by bus. Those women were out in the front of this house crying, asking for assistance and help. They had worked all of their working life with that one company--to receive nothing. They still have received nothing.

Then we saw National Textiles get a payout of something like $6 million. The decision of this government with regard to National Textiles just proves how poll driven they are. My bill could have been in place over two years ago. The workers I have mentioned here today could have been covered; their entitlements could have been protected. This government have failed to act, and they have failed to act for fear of upsetting big business. I repeat, for those who refuse to listen: the money required from employers not only to insure their workers but also to cover the scheme's administration costs would be, as best I can work out, no more than 0.1 per cent of the total wage bill. That is a very small amount to pay to protect workers' entitlements. But what does this government want to do regarding National Textiles? What the minister seems to be proposing is not that the employer will take action because he or she has done wrong; the government will ask taxpayers to foot the bill and to put in place a cap of up to $20,000. Of course, when that does not occur, they will start to blame the New South Wales government.

I remind the minister that I can bring in press item after press item quoting what he has said. Even as recently as 31 January this year, the Sydney Morning Herald reported this:

Mr Reith said yesterday that he was proposing a formula by which workers would be sure of gaining unpaid wages for up to four weeks, 12 weeks' long service leave, and four weeks redundancy, up to a cap of $20,000.

"We think that would be a fair balance ..."

I do not think the workers of Australia, when they are owed in the vicinity of $60,000 or $70,000, would think a $20,000 cap is a fair balance. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the minister and to all government members: if you are owed for work you have done, should you not be entitled to receive your full entitlement and not have, as the minister thinks, a cap in place? How unfair that is to the workers of Australia who have been deprived, not through anything they have done but because of the insolvency of the particular employer, of their rights. In that same article in the Sydney Morning Herald on that day it said:

Workers at National Textiles have been told they will receive their long service and annual leave along with unpaid wages straight away.

That was 31 January, of course. I do not know what he meant by `straight away'.

However, they will have to wait six months for sick leave and up to two years to receive a portion of their redundancy payments.

They have been told not to expect more than half the redundancy money they are owed.

Had this bill been in place in 1998, 1999 and even in the year 2000, we would not have had to have statements like that. These workers would have been covered for their full entitlements--which is what they should have now.

When the minister for workplace relations had a doorstop on 8 February 2000, he said: "I only say to them-- (meaning the Labor states) that objecting about the details-- (of any particular bill the minister might want to introduce) -- only undermines the commencement of such a scheme if you want to argue about the details, you should put politics aside, just for once and support the Government in looking to the establishment of a National scheme "...

I say to the minister that, if he had wanted to put politics aside, he could have had a national scheme in 1998--a scheme that I have always said was in the bill that I put forward. And it was paid for by this parliament. Time and time again I said that it may not have been perfect, but it provided the groundwork by which we could have had workers' entitlements protected as from the commencement day of the act. Again I quote the minister's doorstop of 8 February this year:

... put politics aside ...

If you want to argue about details, just for once, come in and make sure that this bill, or a bill similar to this, is put in place--not next year, not next month, but now. We would not have been having the problems we have been experiencing in the past had this bill been effected.

In 1996 in my community we saw one company fail and 680 workers lose $17 million in entitlements. Minister Reith in an MPI on 22 June 1999 stated:

In 1997-98, 3,000 companies were in liquidation, receivership or under deed of company arrangements ...

I can tell the minister that the strengthening of the Corporations Law, as we have seen in a bill before this House, will not protect one worker or one worker's entitlement. One only has to read the government's bill before this House to see that it is the greatest misnomer to call that bill relating to Corporations Law `employee protection'. There is not one clause in it that gives one iota of protection to employees. I take offence that the minister feels that just putting that into operation will fix the problem. In that bill, a penalty for improper conduct by a director will not bring back any employee entitlements. It is no good after the event saying to the employer or to the director, `Your conduct was improper.' Where then are the reserves put aside to cover the employee? Down the path, when he has lost everything, the employee does not want to hear what he already knew, that perhaps it was the employer's mismanagement or the fault of a director and that that is why he lost out on what he was entitled to. It does not bring one cent back to them.

What is needed in this country and what is needed in this parliament is real reform. We need to see the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Treasurer drive this type of debate. It needs to be led at a national level. By reintroducing my bill, I am hoping to highlight the problems that continue to fester across this country. I know other options are available, and we, the Labor opposition, will support them, provided they have the same results. Bring on whatever you wish. Amend this bill if you wish. Year after year I have said that. But, for goodness sake, let us get legislation in this country that will, in the future, support the workers so they know they will have their entitlements protected. Workers need to be reassured. They have seen example after example through the publicity that has been given to some of the cases I have mentioned in the debate here today--and there are many more. Those cases have been given prominence because they have been able to bring to light a campaign that the media has taken the run of. In one or two cases they have actually been able to get the government to react in a particular way. That will no longer be accepted. Today, workers are saying--as in the Braybrook example--`We too are in a high unemployment region; we too are in the same area doing the same type of work. Why aren't we protected like the workers at National Textiles were protected?' That is a question the Braybrook workers will continue to ask this government--and so they should.

Workers in my electorate who have lost all their entitlements will continue to ask why is there a cut-off point in certain regulations when we have not seen any legislation from this minister as yet. There will be a cap of $20,000. But why is the cut-off point 1 January 2000? Why aren't they covered? Why aren't the employees who lost their entitlements last year covered? How did this magical date occur? It cannot just be from one statement of the minister for workplace relations because, as I have indicated in the short time I have had here today, he has made many statements. He is very heavy on words but very short on action. We certainly have not seen anything come forward to this House that will give the results that my bill will.

Before I table the explanatory memorandum, I want to repeat something that I have written in there. Government members say, `What have you done?' Prior to 1993, workers were treated as a group of creditors, along with all other creditors to whom an insolvent company was owed money. Workers' interests in keeping open the enterprise by which they were employed are fundamentally different from external creditors. Accordingly, workers' interests were allocated preference over other external creditors, including the tax commissioner, following changes contained in the Insolvency Tax Priorities Legislation Amendment Bill 1993.

That has been proven not to be enough. That is why, even when preference in order of priority is accorded to workers following the company's insolvency, it often proves to be either ineffective or meaningless. If a bankrupt enterprise no longer has any assets then workers, whatever their position in an order of priority, will not benefit. That is in the explanatory memorandum. I do not think it could be written more clearly for the members on the government benches to understand when they ask, `What has Labor done?' Labor has made certain amendments. We now know, and in other cases that have been brought to light, that has not been enough, but at least it has been ongoing. This government in the last four years has done absolutely nothing, even though, time and time again, the need for legislation has been brought to the attention of the House. Time and time again because this is the third time, the third year in a row, that I have introduced this private member's bill, asking the government to act.

What have we seen? We have certainly seen little activity from the government benches. We have seen statements by the minister saying, `We're going to fix it up. Of course, it's those terrible states; I wish they would get their act together.' Yet, in the same breath, he comes in and makes a debate and says that at least 69 per cent of the nation's workers are covered by federal awards. To me that is certainly big enough for the minister to act on and say, `Let me lead. Let the Australian parliament lead the states and get the states' cooperation.' We have also heard the New South Wales Attorney-General state that we did not have to wait when this Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business sent this particular report off to a ministerial council. The then Attorney-General in New South Wales said, `You don't have to wait. You can put in the insurance scheme straightaway.' The insurance scheme he was referring to is a copy of the bill that I sent him in 1998.

So, if we have the cooperation of the states, what is this minister waiting for? Does he want more workers to come out and demonstrate? Or, does he want more workers in Australia to be protected in the future? We need to have action, and we need it now. I ask leave of the House to present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.


------

*   View entire issue - print all of the articles!

*   Issue 46 contents

In this issue
Features
*  Interview: Bob Carr�s Awful Truth
The NSW Premier on Laborism, factions and why the Cabinet Office isn't running the state.
*
*  Unions: The Stellar Experiment
The agenda for the future job-shedding program by Telstra has been revealed via it's bastard child, Stellar.
*
*  Technology: Roboboss is Watching You
Behind the hype of the information age is a sinister side where workplace surveillance robs employees of all privacy and dignity. Sometimes, though, it provides welcome security.
*
*  International: Kiwi Reforms To Spark Union Revival
The head of the New Zealand trade union movement is optimistic that workers will come back to unions once a fair industrial relations framework is put in place.
*
*  Politics: Ethical Politics and the Clinton Affair
The vote by the US House of Representatives in December, 1998 on whether to impeach President Bill Clinton could be regarded as a debate about the acceptability of dirty-handed politics.
*
*  History: Living Library
Sydney�s Mitchell Library archives house some of the most extensive records of our political heritage.
*
*  Satire: Reconciliation, Aussie Style
The majority of Austrlaians want Aboriginals to adopt �our� values: �Why can�t they be ignorant racists too?�
*
*  Review: Casino Oz
Laurie Aarons' new book puts the spotlight on the growing gap being the rich and the poor.
*

News
»  Carr Vows to Move on Casuals
*
»  NSW Government in Hot Seat Over Individual Contracts
*
»  Telstra Troubleshooter Bombs Stellar
*
»  Illegal immigrants Working Next Door to PM
*
»  Education Department Hit By Massive Fine
*
»  Victims Comp Changes Exclude Traumatised Worker
*
»  SOCOG Agrees: Ceremonies Not an Eisteddfod
*
»  Senate Guts 'Ships from Hell' Bill
*
»  Campaigners Seek Dissident Web Domains
*

Columns
»  The Soapbox
*
»  The Locker Room
*
»  Trades Hall
*
»  Tool Shed
*

Letters to the editor
»  The Real Big Fella
*
»  That's It For Labor
*
»  Join Australia's Gas Out
*
»  Tribute to Jennie
*

What you can do

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

Enter keyword(s):
  


Workers Online - 2nd place Labourstart website of the year


BossWatch


Wobbly Radio



[ Home ][ Notice Board ][ Search ][ Previous Issues ][ Latest Issue ]

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

URL: http://workers.labor.net.au/46/a_guestreporter_crosio.html
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW

 *LaborNET*

 Labor Council of NSW

[Workers Online]

[Social Change Online]