Mr WILTON(1.56 p.m.) —I might commence my remarks on this fairly heinous bill by saying that perhaps the hub of the wheel around which Australian society revolves is the right to a fair go: a fair go to recipients of social security benefits, to enable them to live a decent life; a fair go for manufacturers and exporters, who may receive some incentives and subsidies to encourage them to compete in international markets; and a fair go, of course, for Aboriginals, who endure life spans significantly less than those enjoyed by other Australians and who should rightly be compensated for the decimation of their culture.

The mature and considered industrial relations system that has been developing and evolving in Australia since the strike-torn era presided over by the Fraser government—and, indeed, since times before that—has been premised on the fact that the bargaining relationship between the employer and the employee is by nature not one in which the concept of that same `fair go' prevails. Left to market forces, the employer will always have the upper hand. Historically, a fair go in that context has not always prevailed.

The workplace relations bill undermines each of the three key foundations on which both a fair go and rights to decent living standards are built and premised. The first of those is the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its role as an independent umpire in the workplace. The second of those is the right of workers and unionists to organise and bargain collectively. The third, of course, is the award system itself. To put it in somewhat of an anatomical context, awards will be gutted, the umpire will be hamstrung, and a blind eye will be turned towards workplace exploitation.

All Australians—both those for whom the concept of a fair go comes relatively easily and those who obtain a fair go through their access to government services—will live in an Australian society which, by my standards, will be inherently less fair. It will be less fair because, in totality, each of these three measures will lead to a lowering of the standards of living of Australian families.

This bill, if enacted, will indeed adversely affect the weak and the disempowered in the community: I cite, amongst those, women, part-timers, migrants and the young. Women have historically achieved greater pay equity with men under the award system than outside of it. That is something that the member for Lindsay (Ms Jackie Kelly) might want to reflect upon, following her submission to the House this morning. Statistics show that, on average, women under awards receive 93.8 per cent of men's wages, yet women receive only 54.7 per cent, on average, of over-award payments received by men.

The message is clear. Where wages have been set by direct negotiation rather than by the Industrial Relations Commission, women have been severely disadvantaged in comparison with men. The government's industrial relations bill will compel women to enter into direct negotiations with employers. Whilst all employees risk losing out on those negotiations, women, in my view, will remain particularly vulnerable. (Time expired)

Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.