FAIR WORK ACT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.D. Lawson:

That the regulations under the Fair Work Act 1994, concerning clothing outworkers, made on 18 October 2007 and laid on the table of this council on 23 October 2007, be disallowed.

(Continued from 5 March 2008. Page 2039.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (20:38): It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I have a deep interest in the concerns of the disadvantaged in our society. I have undertaken quite a bit of research on the issues surrounding this motion and have carefully weighed the arguments put for and against disallowance. The arguments for disallowance seem to come down to two main points: first, additional documentation being a burden on a business; and, secondly, the potential loss of jobs. I do not agree with some others in this place that the reporting burden is excessively onerous, as the returns are quarterly. That line of thinking also presumes that many business people—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Bressington has the floor. If they do not want to listen, members can leave the chamber.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: —have little concern for the source of their products. I have personally dealt with owners of small and medium-sized businesses and know a few who would be willing partners to exploitation. The fact that the Australian Retailers Association is supportive of these changes is, I believe, indicative of the attitude of the vast majority of the business community who would be affected. The second point relates to job losses. As members in this place would know, the majority of clothing sold in this country has been imported for many years. In fact, most of the work done by outworkers in this country does not involve manufacturing.

They are largely involved in tasks such as alteration and the sewing on of labels for specific retailers, after they have been on sold by importers. These are not tasks that are easily undertaken offshore, as this work can only be done after the items are in this country. As such, I would not expect any significant impact on employment. There are many who, effectively, are invisible and are easily overlooked. The outworkers in the clothing industry live in the shadows of our society. They are more likely to be women, often with small children. They are likely to be recent migrants with few saleable skills and often will have little or no command of the English language. By any definition, their power to bargain for what should be their natural rights is very limited.

The simple factor of their functional invisibility makes assessing their number difficult. It appears that there could well be thousands in this state. The number is not important. However, the fact that they are people not receiving payment and conditions comparable to the minimum award is of concern. It is encouraging to see that representatives of business and Labor were able to cooperate in addressing the issue of outworkers. I for one would be very pleased if more agreement could be found between these groups on other issues. If I have a reservation about this, it is that clothing is not the only industry using outworkers, and I do wonder why the government did not take a broader approach.

I would be hopeful that, in the near future, the remuneration and conditions of all outworkers will be addressed and would be pleased if the government could enlighten me and other members as to its future plans, if any, on this matter. The government is to be commended in finally addressing the question of fair remuneration and conditions for clothing outworkers. I do not support the motion for disallowance.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.