The Federal Government is hoping to enact new Forward with Fairness laws before Easter which will dismantle WorkChoices and ban new Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs).
The new legislation will apply to every worker covered by the Workplace Relation Act and follows the introduction of new bargaining guidelines for agreement-making in the public service.
What the parties are saying
The Coalition yesterday allowed the draft law to pass the lower House without dissent. It now has priority in the upper House.
However, despite allowing the Bill through without calling for a vote, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said the legislation was fundamentally flawed and unnecessarily complicated.
Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard said some minor technical changes suggested by a Senate inquiry would be considered, but that this should not hold up the Bill’s passage.
The Greens indicated they will try to change the Bill in the Senate, including a clause restoring unfair dismissal protection to all workers, but said they will not hold up the passage of the legislation.
CPSU National Secretary Stephen Jones said the legislation was "a very positive development" for Australia.
"Forward with Fairness will help restore rights stripped away by the previous government and create a stronger, more humane safety net in all workplaces," he said.
Govt moves early to restore rights in public sector
According to Stephen Jones the Government's new public service bargaining guidelines have already set the stage for delivering a more secure working future for workers in our industries.
"Forward with Fairness will ensure Australians in other employment areas get a fair go too," he said.
As well as removing the use of AWAs and restoring the 'no-distadvantage' test, the Forward with Fairness Bill will modernise awards and introduce ten new employment standards to underpin all agreement making.
Mr Jones said extended parental leave and the right for parents to request more flexible work arrangements recognise the needs of modern working families.
“These new standards reflect the pressures of life and the need to be able to balance work, life and family commitments.”
The 10 standards also call for consistent long service leave entitlements across all states and territories as well as basic termination and redundancy payments.
“This will provide a basic level of security and certainty to the most vulnerable in our workforce,” said Mr Jones.
Let us know below what you think of this new legislation.
Comments(10)
Posted by:Trev - 21 Mar 2008, 5:52pm
The new laws will be a great start on the road to recovery for the working poor doing part time work in several jobs to make up one salary.
Posted by:Sandra Athihe - 20 Mar 2008, 8:09pm
Its a relieve to hear that the new govt has banned for signing any new AWA's. I can make myself believe that at least my vote for this govt at the federal election did not go a waste. For an instance I agree that AWA was good but what I cant make myself come to terms is that each AWA contract differs from another depending on whcih batch one signed it. That was ver unfair and if we wanted to go ahead for enquires there was no single authorised body which was able to give clear and definate answer to our queries. At the end it all looked for the profit the then govt was making saying it was to develop the country's economy and the employer going hand in hand. We the employee's had no say and had conditions been put one after the other. We had no rights or could not voice out what we felt. In short we always felt threaten, insecure and doubtful about our future working in any enterprise.
Posted by:D - 20 Mar 2008, 9:57am
Why have all the contract managers at my workplace, that were on AWA's, been offered common law contracts to replace their AWA's but none of the other employees have been given the option of changing from AWA's to either the certified agreement or common law contracts??? I realize that an AWA can be terminated if both employer and employee agree to, but if only the employee wants to terminate the AWA and switch to the certified agreement that most of their colleagues are on, how is this forward with fairness?
Posted by:Helen Wood - 20 Mar 2008, 9:38am
I am concerned that people see flexible working for parents as some kind of gift that is being refused to non parents. It is a fundamental human condition that we must generate children if society is to continue. Therefore being able to adequately care for children is more important that being able to visit with friends or take a study tuitorial (these are choices) caring adequately for children is a national requirement as as such businesses need to support parents in achieving this.
Posted by:David Questel - 19 Mar 2008, 7:50pm
The effects of Workchoices will take quite some time to dissapear. the transitional legislation is a start only and has left a number of issues still to be dealt with. The fact that new businesses and bsunieeses that ahve been sold (at least 12 months after they have been sold) are still "award free" means that a lot of workers will continue to miss out on overtime and penalty rates until at least 1/1/2010. the fact that the notorious "employer greenfields agreements" (an agreement with yourself) still exist are matters for concern - as they should and could have been dealt with in the transitional legislation - there would have been little argument for the Liberals to put against them. Why weren't they? I find matters such as there to be disconcerting and causing me to worry about how genuine labour is.
The new laws will be a great start on the road to recovery for the working poor doing part time work in several jobs to make up one salary.
Its a relieve to hear that the new govt has banned for signing any new AWA's. I can make myself believe that at least my vote for this govt at the federal election did not go a waste. For an instance I agree that AWA was good but what I cant make myself come to terms is that each AWA contract differs from another depending on whcih batch one signed it. That was ver unfair and if we wanted to go ahead for enquires there was no single authorised body which was able to give clear and definate answer to our queries. At the end it all looked for the profit the then govt was making saying it was to develop the country's economy and the employer going hand in hand. We the employee's had no say and had conditions been put one after the other. We had no rights or could not voice out what we felt. In short we always felt threaten, insecure and doubtful about our future working in any enterprise.
Why have all the contract managers at my workplace, that were on AWA's, been offered common law contracts to replace their AWA's but none of the other employees have been given the option of changing from AWA's to either the certified agreement or common law contracts??? I realize that an AWA can be terminated if both employer and employee agree to, but if only the employee wants to terminate the AWA and switch to the certified agreement that most of their colleagues are on, how is this forward with fairness?
I am concerned that people see flexible working for parents as some kind of gift that is being refused to non parents. It is a fundamental human condition that we must generate children if society is to continue. Therefore being able to adequately care for children is more important that being able to visit with friends or take a study tuitorial (these are choices) caring adequately for children is a national requirement as as such businesses need to support parents in achieving this.
The effects of Workchoices will take quite some time to dissapear. the transitional legislation is a start only and has left a number of issues still to be dealt with. The fact that new businesses and bsunieeses that ahve been sold (at least 12 months after they have been sold) are still "award free" means that a lot of workers will continue to miss out on overtime and penalty rates until at least 1/1/2010. the fact that the notorious "employer greenfields agreements" (an agreement with yourself) still exist are matters for concern - as they should and could have been dealt with in the transitional legislation - there would have been little argument for the Liberals to put against them. Why weren't they? I find matters such as there to be disconcerting and causing me to worry about how genuine labour is.