House debates

Wednesday, 14 June 2006

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2006-2007

Consideration in Detail

11:45 am

Photo of Paul NevillePaul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me go on a little further. In the union mounted campaign we hear about the number of people who supposedly have dropped holiday leave loadings, public holiday entitlements and the like, but we never hear quoted the percentage of those who have actually increased their entitlements as a result of a workplace agreement, and I think that is central to it. There would be a vast amount of resentment in Gladstone if workplace agreements were banned as Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, has said that he will do as part of his policy. I go to Comalco—which is absolutely a model plant, where safety and all those sorts of things are benchmarked at the highest levels—and I never hear a word of complaint or resentment whatsoever.

I had a case in Bundaberg recently involving a firm that sold blinds and shades—and those of you who know Queensland know that that is partly seasonal because you do not sell blinds and shades throughout the year. A man took over this firm which, to that point, had only casuals; the whole firm was casuals—the lot. He did not find that satisfactory. He created between 17 and 20 full-time jobs so, for the first time, those employees were going to get holiday pay, sick pay and all the other entitlements. He paid out the existing employees that had other entitlements and he said that, because of the seasonal nature of the work, those who were leaving would have first call on coming back for the casual work.

The unions tried to portray it to the media—but the media would not wear it—as being a result of the IR legislation, which it was not. All these guys had gone from casual employment to 17 to 20 full-time positions but, because four or five of them in this reshuffle would be brought in on a seasonal basis, the unions attempted to portray that to the people of Bundaberg as being part of the IR regime. It was totally dishonest. So I have intervened in this debate today for no other reason than for the sake of balance.

Comments

No comments