Address To The ACTU ‘Reasonable Hours’ Summit

Speech

Transcript - Melbourne - 20 November 2002

Check Against Delivery

Thanks very much Sharon, and to Richard, and to Ivan, to Greg, of course, and to my colleagues from both sides of the industrial fence.

I am delighted that this a conference today to talk through the implications for the recent test case decision which established as a right the fact that workers have been refused reasonable hours. The first preface of this conference is to try and work through how we implement that right. But it is an important starting point, it is a framework, and definition must be given to it.

I am also delighted, of course, that there are so many people from the media here today. To finally take an interest in this vital area of work and family, just as they turned up yesterday to hear important announcements on the drought. Because these are the issues impacting on ordinary Australian families. They are the issues that matter in the workplace and they are the issues that people want solutions to. Interestingly enough, they have always been the issues that people have wanted addressed.

Thirty years ago - not in this building, but in the one that was the precursor to it, the one up in Lygon Street - I was involved as a very young industrial advocate for the Storemen and Packers Union. There was a new industry emerging, it was in bulk chemicals down in Coode Island. Interestingly enough, it has been in the news over recent years as to where its location should be. But they wanted to establish a new workplace arrangement. And out of that, I sat down with the workers and they said that they were prepared to work the longer shifts if they could bulk up the time off. What emerged from that was essentially not just a 35-hour week, but the ability to take it on a roster of four days on and four days off.

Because their choice, then, was that they wanted to spend more time with their families, they wanted to have the freer time, they were prepared to work the four lots of twelve – which was a necessity for the business - and it's interesting that it came back in terms of the 48-hour cap. But they were able to work a roster that, over a period of time, with the equivalent of 35 hours a week, it gave them significant time off which they wanted.

Funnily enough, being a dedicated new industrial advocate, I thought I'd better see what the ACTU thought of all this. And I wrote a letter to Harold Souter, who was the secretary at the time, and went through this very lengthy explanation as to why, what it was, what the agreement was and asked him for approval. I didn't get approval for a long time so we went ahead and implemented the agreement. But subsequently, I got a letter back from the ACTU Secretary - it was one line, I will never forget it – and it said ‘Dear Mr Crean, in response to your letter, it is the policy of the ACTU for a 35-hour week, 7 hours a day'. In other words, no flexibility in terms of the policy. Now, I took that to mean, if he wasn't saying no, it was alright, so we went ahead and implemented it.

But the point I'm making to you is that it is important for union representatives of the people who work in the organisations – whether they are unions or employers – you can't ever be removed from what their real needs are. You should never be out of touch from them, and you should always be looking for ways in which the flexibility can work and their needs addressed.

I might also say that in the ‘70s there were some significant campaigns that I was also involved in, for the nine-day fortnight in the oil industry, where subsequently a series of campaigns for the 38-hour week, and what has become the norm, the 19-day month. The great irony is, having fought and won the 38-hour week as a policy implementation, we are here today considering initiatives to cap 48 hours. And I think that we need to reflect on the reasons for that.

Of course the reasons are financial. I remember at the time, the negotiations were being done on the 35, 38, whatever hours campaign we were running. Whenever the point was put by some of the workforce that we should limit the amount of overtime, it was always rejected, always rejected – because basically the workforce took the view they weren't getting enough money and they needed the capacity to supplement. That is still the case, more so today, increasingly more so. We know the financial pressure, quite frankly, that families are under. This is a Government that is the highest taxing Government in Australia's history. It is a Government that has seen credit card and household debt balloon to record proportions. No wonder people are under financial pressure. No wonder they are putting off having families. No wonder they have to work the overtime.

Now, we have to address that problem. And what the Labor Party has done is to put on the table the issue of tax credits again. Now I know that people think there is complexity involved in this but, quite frankly, we have got to look at ways in which it is not just through the money wage that we address the living wage. It's not just through the money wage that we improve disposable income. We have got to look at more creative ways that we can lift the base, in which we can give people economic dignity through their working life so that they are not forced to work the additional hours. So that they do have greater choice in exercising the norm that has been negotiated on their behalf.

I have mentioned these sort of killer facts in terms of financial pressure. Sharon and Richard have talked about them in terms of hours; that, on average, Australian workers work the second-longest hours of anyone in the industrial world. Only South Koreans works longer hours than Australians. It says something about the nation that led the world in terms of reduced hours, that it is back up there, second on the list in terms of maximum hours. And it can only be those things that I have talked about in terms of financial pressure. Now there are ways to address it, but you need governments committed to reforming the system and the taxation system so that it does give people decency insofar as their take-home pay is concerned.

The other killer fact that I think is pretty interesting, two killer facts: one, the Government is applauding itself for creating one million jobs over the course of its term of office. Do you know that over the last three years, of all the jobs created, only 700 of them pay better than average weekly earnings? In other words, only 700 middle-income jobs in this country. And the further point that has come out in the statistics, is that one-third of full-time workers can't take a holiday away from home. Think about that.

I thought about it and posed this proposition to a group of employers in the Gold Coast, recently, who came from the tourism industry. They, of course, have been at the forefront, like lots of employers, who are arguing for greater flexibility for them in terms of the way that they can employ. They're looking at it only from the perspective of the cost of employing people. My point to them is, you have got to look at incomes not just as a cost to you, but as disposability in the hands of the individual as to what they spend it on. You're in an industry that needs to have people taking holidays, yet the very mechanism that you're championing is limiting the ability of people to use your product. Sure, you might get the flexibility that you need in terms of workplace arrangements, but you're not getting the business that you should be getting in an affluent society such as ours.

My point, of course, is that if – and this is why it is so important to see the employers here today – you have got to look at two sides of the equation when it comes to flexibility and the way in which you employ, and the hours under which people work. You have got to look at it from the point of view of the income going to them and the business that they in turn generate.

I was in Brisbane on another occasion recently, and it was just very useful to talk to an employer of a large publishing business who said to me that the penny finally dropped about this flexibility question in the workplace when a very loyal employee often said – when he asked her if she could just stay back for another hour – said, ‘I can't, because if I'm not at the childcare centre by 5:00pm I will be penalised for every minute I'm late'. Now this bloke said, ‘I always thought that this childcare stuff and this flexibility was nonsense', and he said ‘It was like I had just descended from Mars, I was not aware that this issue was out there'. It was not that she didn't want to be flexible, it's that she couldn't be. And that's the issue that has to be understood more from the employers' perspective. As Ivan has indicated, there are circumstances in which, if the need is there, workers will do the right thing. But they've also got to be protected in circumstances in which, if the personal need arises, they are also protected.

For example, we introduced the Private Member's Bill in the Parliament recently to ensure that employers couldn't sack firefighters who had volunteered their service; couldn't sack the firefighters if they hadn't turned up for their normal work. We are still waiting for the Government to adopt that, of course, but I think it highlights the point. It's a very graphic demonstration that people are prepared to be flexible, but they also want the right to be protected. And I think this is the key area that we need to look at in the development of policy frameworks.

Now, the Labor Party recognises that the work and family balance is a critical area of policy development. People should not have to make the choice between being a good worker and a good parent. They should be able to be both – in the way in which Ivan's talked about it. I would hate to tell you my stories in terms of the kids waiting at the window. They would be waiting there five days on some occasions for me to get home. But, I know the problem. And it is hard. But you shouldn't be forced to make the choice between being a good worker and a good parent. And what the test case does, of course, as I said at the beginning, is establish the right. What we've got to do is to look at creative ways in which that right can be implemented.

Of course, governments have a role to play. Governments may not have all the answers, but they can make a difference if they apply themselves. That is why we are committed to, as I said, looking at the tax credits argument. It's why we are also committed to the implementation of paid maternity leave. Not as the be-all and end-all for the flexibility in terms of families, but as an essential building block.

We do have to look at those policy areas that impact on people, particularly in the nought to five years of age category. The issues of childcare, the issues of early learning support. These are things that do matter to parents. They are pressures that can be taken off parents if they are done properly, and Governments can play a key role.

But the other area that really needs to be developed - as is the important focus of this summit - is the way in which we can get greater flexibility in the arrangements in the workplace, so that individuals can make the balance better between work and family. This Government talks about a no-disadvantage test. (inaudible) But why shouldn't we have a family-friendly test? What's wrong with that? If we genuinely believe we want to become, not just an affluent society and a society of opportunity, but a civilised one, we've got to understand it's not just the economy, it's the society and the ability of that society to develop in sophisticated ways, in flexible ways. I happen to agree with those statements, both that Abbott and Bob Herbert made that ‘one-size doesn't fit all'. No one's arguing for one-size-fits-all. But what I am arguing for is a framework in which that flexibility can be implemented.

I think we do have to look at the issues that enable people returning to work, for example, after having had children - whichever spouse it is – the opportunity to come back on a part-time basis. I think it's also important that if the hours of work are identified, why shouldn't people be able to work through and identify different starting and finishing times if the work is being done? It's those sort of flexibilities that I think we've got to build a framework around. I hope that it can come from the negotiations. But, just as the test-case demonstrated, you need some sort of authority establishing the framework and I suspect it's going to involve some need for change in the industrial legislation to build that framework in.

I'm not proposing specific remedies today. What I am saying is that for those of you who are around this table, I would like to see more genuine dialogue about creative solutions because, really, as I've found way back 30 years ago when I started, we didn't get the ideas sitting around this table determining what was in the best interests of the workers. The way we found it out was to go and talk to them, understand their needs, and build a framework in which the flexibility can be implemented. That is not one-size-fits-all. That is family-friendly policies that identify a framework in which the person can exercise the choice, people can negotiate around it and know that they can't be threatened with the sack if the boss doesn't happen to like it.

These are two-way things. It's in the interests of the employers to have people who are committed to the job, not worrying about whether the kids are going to be picked up or who is looking after them when they are sick. If they can have confidence that the flexibility is there, that will not be abused, but can be used in a framework that protects them. That's the sort of solution I think we should be striving to achieve. They're the sorts of things that Labor is looking at in terms of the industrial relations legislation. And I look forward to the outcome from these discussions today as to where we might take some of the specific initiatives in the future.

I congratulate the ACTU for the organisation of this summit today, for the fact that the employers are participating in it – that is an important realisation that this does need to be worked through. What I'm always confident of is that, if we do work together, we can come up with the solution. And I would hope that we will be coming up with some solutions out of today. Thanks very much.

(ends)