Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House what new protections are available to working Australians? Are there any alternative policies that will threaten recent job growth?

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hughes for her question and note that the unemployment rate in Hughes is now 3.1 per cent, an all-time low. The coalition government has introduced a stronger safety net that will protect over 7½ million Australian workers. The fairness test ensures that these employees will receive fair compensation if they trade away penalty rates or other benefits that come with the award. This means that the workers of Australia can be paid more and not less. It means that the criticisms of the fairness test over the last few weeks by people like John Della Bosca, Sharan Burrow and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were completely unfounded. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are so opposed to the fairness test that they are going to vote for it. They are so opposed to the fairness test, they are going to vote for it. This continues the Labor Party hypocrisy on economic policy.

Of course they claim to be fiscal conservatives now—fiscal conservatives, yet they voted against tax reform. They claim today to be fiscal conservatives, yet they voted against getting the budget into surplus. They claim to be fiscal conservatives and yet they have stood in the way of industrial relations reform. They have claimed to be fiscal conservatives, and they opposed the Future Fund. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, and they oppose privatisation. And now they are so opposed to the fairness test that they are going to vote for it.

The fundamental issue about the fairness test is that it ensures that Australian workplace agreements and collective agreements signed under our laws will have a third party check. An independent third party will ensure that AWAs and collective agreements in fact pay the full award entitlements. So under our laws there is a third party check for AWAs and collective agreements. Under the Labor Party’s laws—under the Labor Party’s common law contracts—there is no third party check. It relies on the goodwill of the employer to properly compensate the employee for taking away penalty rates or other entitlements.

I thought to myself: ‘There is an element of hypocrisy about the Labor Party’s comments on individual contracts.’ You would have thought that the Labor Party would have been so outraged about individual contracts which compensate by paying only 45c an hour that they would have hammered those contracts from one end of the country to the other. Last Wednesday it did not hold the Deputy Leader of the Opposition back from criticising the Doolans and the Lilac City Motor Inn. She went after a small business that employs 13 people. But the next day we find out about a business underpaying 58 people, and not a word from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. No-one could put it to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition better than, believe it or not, Tony Jones on Lateline last night. He was a little confused, and so am I. In a question to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to WorkDirections, he said:

If you come across another case yourself where a contract had bought out overtime penalties and other entitlements for 45 cents an hour, you’d have made that public happily, wouldn’t you?

JULIA GILLARD: Tony, I have never criticised an employer for making an honest error ...

TONY JONES: Were those contracts fair in your opinion, to buy out all those entitlements for 45 cents an hour? Was that fair?

JULIA GILLARD—

She goes on with babble, babble. Question 3:

TONY JONES: But was the original contract - it’s a simple question. Was the original contract buying out all those entitlements for 45 cents an hour, was that fair?

JULIA GILLARD—

Babble, babble. Question 4:

TONY JONES: So the original contracts weren’t fair in that case? Is that what you’re acknowledging? I’m confused.

Tony Jones was confused. We are confused as well, Mr Speaker. Question 5:

TONY JONES: Were the original contracts fair or not fair?

JULIA GILLARD: Tony, I’ve answered that for you.

Question 6:

TONY JONES: No you haven’t, well you haven’t.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I think I have ...

Question 7:

TONY JONES: Did they comply with the award?

JULIA GILLARD: Well, clearly here, some back payments have been made, because there were arrangements which when they came to light and were looked at ... an honest error ...

TONY JONES: So they weren’t fair?

JULIA GILLARD: They weren’t complying with the award ...

TONY JONES: But you said if they don’t comply with the award they’re not fair. Is that right?

JULIA GILLARD: Oh no. Yes Tony ...

‘Oh, no. Yes, Tony’!

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister has the call.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to know why the Labor Party are so prepared to criticise Australian workplace agreements that have a third party check to ensure that fairness is in place but they are not prepared to criticise individual contracts where there is no third party check? You need look no further than the Labor Party and the ACTU ads—‘The new IR law is a shooting gallery’—where it says that employers are shooting workers on individual contracts. The Labor Party are so opposed to our laws that provide third party protection, but their mates in the ACTU are running ads about individual contracts that for 45c an hour take away the entitlements of the workers. Look at what the Labor Party do, not what they say. When it comes to hypocrisy, they get an A-plus!